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 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 There's a reason few women are involved in the fight against gun control, it's because it relies on outdated conceptions of masculinity.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...
Thinking "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.
Your comparison doesn't fly. The stereotype he depicts is loudly represented in the media, you can barely say it's strange he gets that impression. What Dutch person has been screaming on talk shows, writing in blogs or representing these points of views in a governmental body about shooting kids? On top of that, based on my personal experience, his statements aren't so far off. I know but one "reasonable" gun owner, versus dozens who pretty much think exactly the way he describes. If you're part of some silent majority, it might be time to speak up.
Regardless of all of this, it just doesn't make sense to prohibit drugs while permitting gun ownership... With drugs you might accidentally kill yourself, with guns you can pretty much not do anything else but kill, yourself and others... and you don't even get high from a shotgun.
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...
Thinking "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.
You're the one applying your worldview to me, not me. I'm not expecting you to "be respectful", I'm asking you to be intellectually honest. You're taking a worldview from an extreme, limited perspective, and applying it in the most dramatic, unappealing, and (in a LOT of cases) patently incorrect, way, to a whole lot of people.
That's poor debate, it's tactless, it doesn't contribute anything, and it is, in it's own way, just as hateful of rhetoric as the bilge from fanatics and extremists that you base it off of.
The vast majority of the gun owners I personally know don't give a shit what color someone's skin is. Their belief in a patriarchal society (if it exists) is frequently religious in nature and shared by their spouses, making it their own business as long as they don't try to cram it down other people's throats (really, a lot don't).
The outspoken section of a huge people group is frequently a vocal minority when it comes to belief and rhetoric. Gun owners are no different; hell, I know plenty of gun owners who are extremely left-leaning on everything else.
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...
Thinking "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.
Your comparison doesn't fly. The stereotype he depicts is loudly represented in the media, you can barely say it's strange he gets that impression. What Dutch person has been screaming on talk shows, writing in blogs or representing these points of views in a governmental body about shooting kids? On top of that, based on my personal experience, his statements aren't so far off. I know but one "reasonable" gun owner, versus dozens who pretty much think exactly the way he describes. If you're part of some silent majority, it might be time to speak up.
Regardless of all of this, it just doesn't make sense to prohibit drugs while permitting gun ownership... With drugs you might accidentally kill yourself, with guns you can pretty much not do anything else but kill, yourself and others... and you don't even get high from a shotgun.
Oh, so being bigoted is ok as long as mass media represents people that way? Because if that's the case, then having a racist impression of needing to defend yourself from the minority with guns is perfectly fine.
Watch some American rap videos and tell me the mass media representation doesn't give gun owners a reason to want guns to defend themselves against minorities. Which nullifies everything he had originally said anyways.
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.
User was warned for this post
So that's why female victims of rape in our country sign up to have a concealed handgun license? I guess they all just have penis envy and want to be the "man" of the house to protect themselves.
Your comments are incredibly narrow minded and insulting.
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...
Thinking "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.
Citation needed.
Also, you're making an irrelevant ad hominem. Even if your smear tactics have any truth to them, this doesn't have any bearing towards the legitimate arguments in favor of gun rights.
On January 29 2013 02:12 Millitron wrote: 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?
People don´t need guns to protect their rights. They only need a legitimate government and a proper judicial system. It´s not about rights in general, merely about the right to carry a gun.
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?
So if it is understood that guns are a means of escalation, how can anything positive be expected from their distribution?
This whole "the government" vs "the common man" thing truly is the problem here. It´s used to create a vague sense of danger where there is none. The government is not some strange foreign aristocracy sucking the marrow out of the workers´ bones, they are elected representatives of your country. People who you can vote for, and most importantly, they´re just people. I mean, if you believe what you say, why not say it plainly: "I fear the government will send armed forces to my home. Therefore I need guns to protect myself (although I realize that I could not if that ever actually happened)."
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.
That is the point. They backed down because their superior force was rendered useless by the Indians´ refusal to cooperate and the public pressure on the British government which previously claimed legitimacy.
What do you do when peaceful protest doesn't work, and they start shooting at you?
I run? It´s not like shooting at "them" would work. As you admitted, it would only escalate the violence. That is the whole point. If I had a gun and shot at the oppressive government people, then we would have a shooting, nothing more. If everybody starts shooting, then you have a civil war. It may seem counter-intuitive to remain peaceful in the face of physical threat, but it is the right thing, because it sets an example and shows the injustice of violence. Shooting back on the other hand only gives the tyrannical US government more reason to use force.
When 'tyranny' is the government, the police, the army, AND your neighbor? Good luck.
So do you actually believe that could happen in the US and that such a development would be hindered by people owning guns?
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...
Thinking "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)
"it's primarily republican men with strong patriarchal (often racist) world views that strongly advocate gun ownership." Men and patriarchal is just a redundancy, you could have included women to matriarchy but for some reason you are insisting on a patriarchal society, sexist? Republicans advocate, more so then democrats, this is common knowledge. Democrats tend to live in high crime and high populated areas, the majority of gun crimes are committed in strong democratic areas. Republicans advocate their rights to own and carry guns because gun crimes are almost non existent by them. I do not see how you fantasized 'evil and deluded', and 'racist' remarks are relevant in anyway to what the topic at hand. Just the sentence "such as racist fantasies about having to defend their family against uprising minorities that have come to collect their fair share" is full of stupidity and ignorance. A persons right to the second amendment does not make them a racist fantasist, and now minorities are a group of individuals that go door to door 'collecting their fair share' in a manner that gives the average American a reason to 'defend their family' from? (edit: smearing)+ Show Spoiler +
These posts made by the immature left wing are becoming pathetic, when they have nothing constructive or factual to say they throw in the race card and the minority card. You forgot to blame bush and fox news while you were at it,
On January 26 2013 16:00 Finganforn wrote: Well it feels like I see more news stories about random madmen using guns to commit school shootings than stories about good civilians using guns to defend themselves. And I'd think there'd be people with political agendas pushing those heroic stories of "this 39-year old mother of five defended herself and her children from a house invader" but they still seem to rarely happen. This is just me basing it on the frequncy of media coverage though, I don't know any actual numbers.
The whole "armed citizens are safer citizens" sounds a lot like the whole nuclear weapons deterrent and "Mutual assured destruction". There's a certain logic to it but it seems fundamentally wrong to me, enabling more violence to prevent violence? Why stop at guns then, what about giving nuclear missiles to every person in the world?
It's true that gun laws will be ignored by hardcore criminals, but it can make it more difficult for madmen and more "casual" criminals from aquiring them. If someone is desperate enough to carry guns in a gun controlled society, they probably are career criminals and know to use them good enough that a random civilian wont be able to defend themselves anyway.
But there's also the matter of accessability. As the OP says, "Criminals have gotten access to guns, and that is a genie that isn't going back into the bottle." I would argue that gun control is a bad idea in a society where all the criminals and potential criminals already have abundant access to guns, and a much better idea in a society where guns are still rare and harder to come by.
The media doesn't report about civilians protecting themselves because it doesn't get good ratings. Good news isn't as exciting as bad news.
I would be ok with allowing everyone to have nukes because only responsible people have enough money and connections to get one. You can't be crazy AND have that kind of power. Remember, nukes are so tough to get that even whole countries have trouble.
Mutually Assured Destruction is not fundamentally wrong. Up until the invention of the atomic bomb, every major war was more widespread and more destructive than the last. We had two world wars in 30 years. We haven't had one since. In any case, the "Why can't everyone own nukes?" argument is a pretty blatant strawman.
As for hardened criminals being too good to protect against, it's simply not true. Anyone can get shot, even the most experienced gunslinger. And besides, even if all criminals were expert marksmen (they aren't), why shouldn't citizens at least have the chance to defend themselves?
Only responsible and sane people have money and connections? I really don't see the correlation there. Lots of people seek money and connections, I would say the personal attributes of intelligence, ruthlessness, and ambition are more useful towards that goal than responsibility and sanity. I'd say that in general they don't mix well. As for regarding sanity, sociopaths are often very good at manipulating people but deeply immoral. Seems kinda off-topic anyway in the theoretical society I used as a strawman theory where everyone has nukes. But a future where the rich and powerful has nukes may still come I guess.
It's true that we haven't had any world wars lately, in a world with more nukes. It could be that deadlier weapons lead to less conflicts, or it could be that the world has become more peaceful, maybe thanks to a relative decline of racistic and religious conflict, and especially the widened global society that newer medias like the internet has given us. Back in the early 20th century, people on the other side of the world were strangers, now we can more easily communicate peacefully with them. But the wars have been getting more destructive thanks to more destructive weapons. More destructive weapons can mean bigger deterrant, but they can also give you a reason to strike a faster pre-emptive strike and win faster. Mutually Assured Destruction is void as soon as one side of a conflict thinks they can disable the enemy nukes in some way.
It's true that guns are easy to use and any person can land a shot on an attacker without much training, but marksmanship isn't the issue as much as how fast you're willing to pull the trigger. Many normal citizens wont instantly draw their gun and shoot a threat, and hardened criminals who operate in a society with abundant gun access will use more force to neutralize their victim before they have a chance to defend themselves. And the less hardened criminals may not have had a gun in the first place if they were harder to acquire.
Eventhough I have nothing to do with America and all Americans will hate me for typing in this thread because I don't understand how it's like to be FREE and how I shouldn't tell them to live their lives, but here it goes:
In a country where guns didn't excist everywhere, these pathetic losers who did these terrible school shootings might have just given up on their little knowning they have to go through the process of getting a gun from some shady dealer (which isn't all that easy if you're not hanging with people like that, also they might want to keep their plan a secret so they'd have to contact the dealer themselves, even harder). You know what I mean?
Murder in a country with an overflow of guns can happen more spontaneously and is a lot closer to hand than in a country without them, you can't argue with that. Some crackhead can sit at home doing drugs/alcohol when he/she finally snaps and get a really bright idea and just grabs one of the guns of the households.
I could go on but you get the point, this is the negative side to the right to defend yourselves with firearms and it's no secret. It's pretty sickening that your society has gone to the point where you feel the NEED to have a gun to be safe, but flame on.
On January 29 2013 01:27 Daswollvieh wrote: 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.
Yes that's exactly what it is. Idealistic. The government isn't a singular body with an agenda it's a whole bunch of people making incredibly important decisions that change the everyday citizen's life and the course of history. And they aren't held accountable by said average citizen whose very life is affected by said decisions. Hence why there is so much corruption left and right. Some guy has power some guy has money, they want what each other has ...
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.
Yes the government has guns. Or since you want to argue semantics, the government has a whole lot of people WORKING FOR IT and CARRYING GUNS and USING THEM. That's slightly worse. And the government decides who gets to carry guns and who doesn't. I don't know what to make of the rest of your paragraph. The very point is that when "specialized group of people" who wield power, being by carrying guns, or deciding who gets to carry guns and who doesn't decides to work for themselves as opposed for the good of the community they can just do it. Unless the people they want to opress for their own benefit have the means to defend themselves, regardless of their actual chances.
Would Ghandi and Martin Luther King have been more successful in their endeavors if they and their followers were armed?
Maybe, maybe not. But what is certain is that had the french revolutionnaries not gotten some pistols and rifles, they would be dead and france would still have a king. Had the jews in nazi germany not been disarmed, they could have at the very least stood for themselves. Had the rebels in current syria not had weapons, they would be dead, and assad would be reverred. Oh and had the americans not been equipped by weapons which at the time were equivalent in effectiveness to their military counterparts, the us might very well still be a british colony. I can go on and on and on ... Also the right to carry guns is completely unrelated to your actual chances of victory. Besides that victory conditions may not be the same for everyone. The right to carry guns is so that people can stand up for themselves. You know, like, for instance, the resistance during world war 2
All of your arguments are based on the idea that we live in a perfect world where everyone is nice and everyone is honest and people do what they "should"... I can't argue with blind faith
I just want to know how the American people having access to guns improves their relationship with their government. Because that´s what I was questioning. All historical, ideological and other sidenotes are not important. Is political corruption battled by people having guns? Do politicians act more carefully because they know some guy could grab a gun and shoot them? Could the US turn tyrannical and would that be avoided by regular people having guns?
On January 29 2013 19:10 rcee wrote: Eventhough I have nothing to do with America and all Americans will hate me for typing in this thread because I don't understand how it's like to be FREE and how I shouldn't tell them to live their lives, but here it goes:
In a country where guns didn't excist everywhere, these pathetic losers who did these terrible school shootings might have just given up on their little knowning they have to go through the process of getting a gun from some shady dealer (which isn't all that easy if you're not hanging with people like that, also they might want to keep their plan a secret so they'd have to contact the dealer themselves, even harder). You know what I mean?
Murder in a country with an overflow of guns can happen more spontaneously and is a lot closer to hand than in a country without them, you can't argue with that. Some crackhead can sit at home doing drugs/alcohol when he/she finally snaps and get a really bright idea and just grabs one of the guns of the households.
I could go on but you get the point, this is the negative side to the right to defend yourselves with firearms and it's no secret. It's pretty sickening that your society has gone to the point where you feel the NEED to have a gun to be safe, but flame on.
I don't NEED a gun to feel safe, just like you don't NEED airbags in your car to feel safe. But it's nice to know I have the option if things get that bad.
On January 29 2013 20:07 Daswollvieh wrote: No need to argue with blind faith.
I just want to know how the American people having access to guns improves their relationship with their government. Because that´s what I was questioning. All historical, ideological and other sidenotes are not important. Is political corruption battled by people having guns? Do politicians act more carefully because they know some guy could grab a gun and shoot them? Could the US turn tyrannical and would that be avoided by regular people having guns?
It doesn't help the relationship between the people and their government, but it doesn't hurt the relationship either.
The US could turn tyrannical just like Spain and Italy in the 30's, or just like France during the Reign of Terror. It might not be avoided by having guns, but it adds another step a tyrant would have to take to enforce their power. They couldn't just up and take over, they'd have to disarm the people first.
How is a government with a few million soldiers and police going to stop a hundred million people with guns?
By the way, blacks did defend themselves from racists in the US with guns when they were able to get them.
And none of the thinkers of the enlightenment would have had any question about the need for effective self defense against government. They were actually students of history and lived under or close to unfree governments. Today you have a bunch of people who know very little history and have no experience with the Man cracking down. We are losing the values of the enlightenment, now it's about telling people what to do and tinkering with society from the top down, with the self prOclaimed elite trying to impose its will. Individual advancement from the bottom up changing society seen as suspect, as is anything 'too' individualistic, especially self defense. You want to take our guns, come try.
On January 29 2013 01:27 Daswollvieh wrote: 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.
Yes that's exactly what it is. Idealistic. The government isn't a singular body with an agenda it's a whole bunch of people making incredibly important decisions that change the everyday citizen's life and the course of history. And they aren't held accountable by said average citizen whose very life is affected by said decisions. Hence why there is so much corruption left and right. Some guy has power some guy has money, they want what each other has ...
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.
Yes the government has guns. Or since you want to argue semantics, the government has a whole lot of people WORKING FOR IT and CARRYING GUNS and USING THEM. That's slightly worse. And the government decides who gets to carry guns and who doesn't. I don't know what to make of the rest of your paragraph. The very point is that when "specialized group of people" who wield power, being by carrying guns, or deciding who gets to carry guns and who doesn't decides to work for themselves as opposed for the good of the community they can just do it. Unless the people they want to opress for their own benefit have the means to defend themselves, regardless of their actual chances.
Would Ghandi and Martin Luther King have been more successful in their endeavors if they and their followers were armed?
Maybe, maybe not. But what is certain is that had the french revolutionnaries not gotten some pistols and rifles, they would be dead and france would still have a king. Had the jews in nazi germany not been disarmed, they could have at the very least stood for themselves. Had the rebels in current syria not had weapons, they would be dead, and assad would be reverred. Oh and had the americans not been equipped by weapons which at the time were equivalent in effectiveness to their military counterparts, the us might very well still be a british colony. I can go on and on and on ... Also the right to carry guns is completely unrelated to your actual chances of victory. Besides that victory conditions may not be the same for everyone. The right to carry guns is so that people can stand up for themselves. You know, like, for instance, the resistance during world war 2
All of your arguments are based on the idea that we live in a perfect world where everyone is nice and everyone is honest and people do what they "should"... I can't argue with blind faith
In response to your last two paragraphs: French and american revolutions don't really relate. The operational strength of the U.S. military and police force has scaled a hundredfold better than that of our civilian population. I've already made a post in this thread detailing the numerical odds against the jews. As a jew myself, I can tell you that most of us are not Rambo, which is unfortunate because every single jew in germany would have needed that kind of bullet-stopping, endless ammunition star power to stand a chance. As to the rebels in Syria, you're wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army#Weapons As we are talking about gun control in the United States, your point is moot. Automatics are banned, and will not be unbanned. The Syrian rebels are not fighting a war with pea shooters, shotguns, and hunting rifles. They are mostly military defectors using stolen automatic weapons, or those shipped in through international backers. This does not build your case that small arms are necessary to fight a tyrannical regime.
As for your last comments, they are mildly amusing because you argue using blind faith. You state that people need to own the guns they do in order to protect against the possible tyranny of the government. You then conclude by saying that it doesn't matter whether or not owning small arms helps to protect against government tyranny. This is circular logic which boils down to a "because I feel this way" level of reasoning which is neither convincing nor useful in this discussion.
On January 30 2013 01:58 DeepElemBlues wrote: How is a government with a few million soldiers and police going to stop a hundred million people with guns?
By the way, blacks did defend themselves from racists in the US with guns when they were able to get them.
And none of the thinkers of the enlightenment would have had any question about the need for effective self defense against government. They were actually students of history and lived under or close to unfree governments. Today you have a bunch of people who know very little history and have no experience with the Man cracking down. We are losing the values of the enlightenment, now it's about telling people what to do and tinkering with society from the top down, with the self prOclaimed elite trying to impose its will. Individual advancement from the bottom up changing society seen as suspect, as is anything 'too' individualistic, especially self defense. You want to take our guns, come try.
How is a government with a few million soldiers and police going to stop a hundred million people with their bare hands? I mean if its going to be 100% government vs civilians, then the government isn't going to stand a chance anyway.
List statistics of black men who survived at least 5 years after killing a member of the KKK.
No, they wouldn't. My point of contention is your assertion that small arms constitute an effective self defense against government. In my mind they don't. The thing about unfree governments is that they're still governments. As long as they still keep order and keep the interests of the people in mind, the majority of the population will still support them. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getúlio_Dornelles_Vargas As for the rest, I'm sorry that reality has a collectivist bias. My advice is to deal with it.
On January 29 2013 01:27 Daswollvieh wrote: 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.
Yes that's exactly what it is. Idealistic. The government isn't a singular body with an agenda it's a whole bunch of people making incredibly important decisions that change the everyday citizen's life and the course of history. And they aren't held accountable by said average citizen whose very life is affected by said decisions. Hence why there is so much corruption left and right. Some guy has power some guy has money, they want what each other has ...
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.
Yes the government has guns. Or since you want to argue semantics, the government has a whole lot of people WORKING FOR IT and CARRYING GUNS and USING THEM. That's slightly worse. And the government decides who gets to carry guns and who doesn't. I don't know what to make of the rest of your paragraph. The very point is that when "specialized group of people" who wield power, being by carrying guns, or deciding who gets to carry guns and who doesn't decides to work for themselves as opposed for the good of the community they can just do it. Unless the people they want to opress for their own benefit have the means to defend themselves, regardless of their actual chances.
Would Ghandi and Martin Luther King have been more successful in their endeavors if they and their followers were armed?
Maybe, maybe not. But what is certain is that had the french revolutionnaries not gotten some pistols and rifles, they would be dead and france would still have a king. Had the jews in nazi germany not been disarmed, they could have at the very least stood for themselves. Had the rebels in current syria not had weapons, they would be dead, and assad would be reverred. Oh and had the americans not been equipped by weapons which at the time were equivalent in effectiveness to their military counterparts, the us might very well still be a british colony. I can go on and on and on ... Also the right to carry guns is completely unrelated to your actual chances of victory. Besides that victory conditions may not be the same for everyone. The right to carry guns is so that people can stand up for themselves. You know, like, for instance, the resistance during world war 2
All of your arguments are based on the idea that we live in a perfect world where everyone is nice and everyone is honest and people do what they "should"... I can't argue with blind faith
In response to your last two paragraphs: French and american revolutions don't really relate. The operational strength of the U.S. military and police force has scaled a hundredfold better than that of our civilian population. I've already made a post in this thread detailing the numerical odds against the jews. As a jew myself, I can tell you that most of us are not Rambo, which is unfortunate because every single jew in germany would have needed that kind of bullet-stopping, endless ammunition star power to stand a chance. As to the rebels in Syria, you're wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army#Weapons As we are talking about gun control in the United States, your point is moot. Automatics are banned, and will not be unbanned. The Syrian rebels are not fighting a war with pea shooters, shotguns, and hunting rifles. They are mostly military defectors using stolen automatic weapons, or those shipped in through international backers. This does not build your case that small arms are necessary to fight a tyrannical regime.
French revolution and nazi germany also don't relate. That is precisely the point, giving you events that have very little in common aside from people having guns and making something happen because they have them. Yes the civilian weapons are plagued with restrictions, many of which are complete nonsense ( the whole "assault weapons" thing. They named it that way because they couldn't name it "big scary looking guns" ).
As a jew myself, I can tell you that most of us are not Rambo
So what ?? I am not jewish. I can tell you that most of the people who aren't jewish are also not rambo. just like i could tell you that tyler is not a tree. Maybe the jews in nazi germany would have still died but at the very least they would have had the option to fight back, and possibly killed a bunch of those people who wanted to do them harm.
Wikipedia : The Free Syrian Army is mainly armed with AK-47s, DShKs and RPG-7s. Besides AK-47s, some FSA soldiers also have M16s, Steyr AUGs, FN FALs, shotguns, G3 Battle Rifles, and PK machine guns The FSA has a few heavy weapons captured from the Syrian government
Jormundr wrote : The Syrian rebels are not fighting a war shotguns
Aside from the DshKs which are soviet heavy machineguns, all of those weapons are small arms. I don't see how you are proving me wrong, in fact it's the complete opposite, you're telling me rebels are fighting a war using small arms and aren't getting destroyed ( but are in fact currently winning ). Thanks for proving my point.
You state that people need to own the guns they do in order to protect against the possible tyranny of the government. You then conclude by saying that it doesn't matter whether or not owning small arms helps to protect against government tyranny.
No. you transformed :
Also the right to carry guns is completely unrelated to your actual chances of victory
Into :
it doesn't matter whether or not owning small arms helps to protect against government tyranny
To make me look like a hypocrite.
What i meant is that you don't need to be able to straight up WIN A CONVENTIONAL WAR AGAINST YOUR ARMY ( hint : VICTORY ) to be protected from your government. And the next sentence is :
victory conditions may not be the same for everyone
which should have been a hint. If you know your potential victim can fight back and has a very real chance of causing damage to you, you are a lot less likely to do it. Not everyone is willing to go all in, otherwise you'd have millions of murder every day. Is it worth murdering some guy because he said something offensive and refused to apologize ?
Besides that, when the people is armed, it becomes far more difficult to neutralize them without shedding blood. I'm willing to bet that not all the cops who are willing to use their tazers against someone would be willing to use their guns knowing someone may very well actually die in this.
As i said, it's completely unrelated to what chance you really have, it's about being able to stand for yourself, maybe you'll loose, maybe you'll win, but at least you get to choose.
On January 29 2013 01:27 Daswollvieh wrote: 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.
Yes that's exactly what it is. Idealistic. The government isn't a singular body with an agenda it's a whole bunch of people making incredibly important decisions that change the everyday citizen's life and the course of history. And they aren't held accountable by said average citizen whose very life is affected by said decisions. Hence why there is so much corruption left and right. Some guy has power some guy has money, they want what each other has ...
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.
Yes the government has guns. Or since you want to argue semantics, the government has a whole lot of people WORKING FOR IT and CARRYING GUNS and USING THEM. That's slightly worse. And the government decides who gets to carry guns and who doesn't. I don't know what to make of the rest of your paragraph. The very point is that when "specialized group of people" who wield power, being by carrying guns, or deciding who gets to carry guns and who doesn't decides to work for themselves as opposed for the good of the community they can just do it. Unless the people they want to opress for their own benefit have the means to defend themselves, regardless of their actual chances.
Would Ghandi and Martin Luther King have been more successful in their endeavors if they and their followers were armed?
Maybe, maybe not. But what is certain is that had the french revolutionnaries not gotten some pistols and rifles, they would be dead and france would still have a king. Had the jews in nazi germany not been disarmed, they could have at the very least stood for themselves. Had the rebels in current syria not had weapons, they would be dead, and assad would be reverred. Oh and had the americans not been equipped by weapons which at the time were equivalent in effectiveness to their military counterparts, the us might very well still be a british colony. I can go on and on and on ... Also the right to carry guns is completely unrelated to your actual chances of victory. Besides that victory conditions may not be the same for everyone. The right to carry guns is so that people can stand up for themselves. You know, like, for instance, the resistance during world war 2
All of your arguments are based on the idea that we live in a perfect world where everyone is nice and everyone is honest and people do what they "should"... I can't argue with blind faith
In response to your last two paragraphs: French and american revolutions don't really relate. The operational strength of the U.S. military and police force has scaled a hundredfold better than that of our civilian population. I've already made a post in this thread detailing the numerical odds against the jews. As a jew myself, I can tell you that most of us are not Rambo, which is unfortunate because every single jew in germany would have needed that kind of bullet-stopping, endless ammunition star power to stand a chance. As to the rebels in Syria, you're wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army#Weapons As we are talking about gun control in the United States, your point is moot. Automatics are banned, and will not be unbanned. The Syrian rebels are not fighting a war with pea shooters, shotguns, and hunting rifles. They are mostly military defectors using stolen automatic weapons, or those shipped in through international backers. This does not build your case that small arms are necessary to fight a tyrannical regime.
French revolution and nazi germany also don't relate. That is precisely the point, giving you events that have very little in common aside from people having guns and making something happen because they have them. Yes the civilian weapons are plagued with restrictions, many of which are complete nonsense ( the whole "assault weapons" thing. They named it that way because they couldn't name it "big scary looking guns" ).
As a jew myself, I can tell you that most of us are not Rambo
So what ?? I am not jewish. I can tell you that most of the people who aren't jewish are also not rambo. just like i could tell you that tyler is not a tree. Maybe the jews in nazi germany would have still died but at the very least they would have had the option to fight back, and possibly killed a bunch of those people who wanted to do them harm.
Wikipedia : The Free Syrian Army is mainly armed with AK-47s, DShKs and RPG-7s. Besides AK-47s, some FSA soldiers also have M16s, Steyr AUGs, FN FALs, shotguns, G3 Battle Rifles, and PK machine guns The FSA has a few heavy weapons captured from the Syrian government
Jormundr wrote : The Syrian rebels are not fighting a war shotguns
Aside from the DshKs which are soviet heavy machineguns, all of those weapons are small arms. I don't see how you are proving me wrong, in fact it's the complete opposite, you're telling me rebels are fighting a war using small arms and aren't getting destroyed ( but are in fact currently winning ). Thanks for proving my point.
You state that people need to own the guns they do in order to protect against the possible tyranny of the government. You then conclude by saying that it doesn't matter whether or not owning small arms helps to protect against government tyranny.
it doesn't matter whether or not owning small arms helps to protect against government tyranny
To make me look like a hypocrite.
What i meant is that you don't need to be able to straight up WIN A CONVENTIONAL WAR AGAINST YOUR ARMY ( hint : VICTORY ) to be protected from your government. And the next sentence is :
victory conditions may not be the same for everyone
which should have been a hint. If you know your potential victim can fight back and has a very real chance of causing damage to you, you are a lot less likely to do it. Not everyone is willing to go all in, otherwise you'd have millions of murder every day. Is it worth murdering some guy because he said something offensive and refused to apologize ?
Besides that, when the people is armed, it becomes far more difficult to neutralize them without shedding blood. I'm willing to bet that not all the cops who are willing to use their tazers against someone would be willing to use their guns knowing someone may very well actually die in this.
As i said, it's completely unrelated to what chance you really have, it's about being able to stand for yourself, maybe you'll loose, maybe you'll win, but at least you get to choose.
If they have nothing in common with our current situation, then they don't further your point.
Your point about the Jews in Germany is outright stupid. Here's your logic: It would have been better for everyone if, instead of just the Jews dying, the Jews also killed off some Germans while they were at it. So you're basically saying that Germans should die just for the fuck of it because they're the 'bad guys'. Grats, you failed basic ethics.
Aside from the shotguns, none of those weapons can be legally owned in the United States by a common citizen in the condition they are used in in the Syrian rebellion. The fully automatics that are legally owned have to have been made before '86. They also have to be registered with the ATF.
Your last bit reiterated what you said earlier. You don't care whether or not there is a statistically significant chance of survival or victory. You argue that ability to fight is crucial regardless of this. In most schools of philosophy, things are valued based on their merits. If having a gun doesn't help you or anyone else, then you don't need the gun. In the case of government tyranny, it doesn't help you, and it has a negative impact on whoever you're trying to "defend" yourself against. That's a net negative. Your best option against the US police force is to either surrender and face trial or to try to escape. Escalation is not very smart because if you manage to kill or wound one of them, you've worsened your situation.
That being said I'm not against gun ownership, I just don't like idiots who think they're going to fight the government with their 1911 and remington 870. A brief overview of american history would show you that those do not tend to protect you from the government when the government wants you. This may be anecdotal, but I hear that shooting a cop or a member of the armed forces is one of the most surefire ways to die (other than suicide).
EPT
