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.
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.
If we're going to deal in a fantasy land we set up for ourselves where the conditions just coincidentally happen to favor what we already believe, how about a world where the people can't defend themselves effectively against those in power and get slaughtered almost every time they show resistance. Oh wait, that isn't a fantasy, its human history, from the days we were painting in caves until only a few hundred years ago.
List statistics of black men who survived at least 5 years after killing a member of the KKK.
Martin Luther King, Jr., applied for a gun permit in 1956. He was denied. I wonder why.
Take your demand for statistics and wallow with it in your own ignorance.
As for the rest, I'm sorry that reality has a collectivist bias. My advice is to deal with it.
The basic unit of human society is the individual. Go up one level and you have the family, which has collective and individual characteristics vis-a-vis society and other families. Keep going up and you find this duality again and again. Up to the largest, most complex structures, organizations like government and corporations, we see the collective need and the individual need bump against each other and create tensions again and again. Sometimes we say more collectivism is right in this area - like, say, employees working on a project and if they disagree with it, they can quit, if not, get to work. On the other hand, we also (ostensibly) encourage and praise whistleblowers.
I'm sorry that you really think pompous declarations intended to ego stroke yourself and put down myself mean anything. Reality has no bias to it. You just wish it does.
My point is that now we see people telling us, "you can't defend yourself. You're not smart enough, or emotionally stable enough, you might panick or go crazy with rage and shoot up a crowd trying to stop a mass shooter. The thief will probably get your gun and kill you and your family. You couldn't stop the government anyway if it tried to oppress the people."
You can't do this, you can't do that, you, prole, aren't capable of it. Not only on self-defense, on so many issues these days. You need the government to do it for you, or stop you from doing it, or make you do it, because you aren't capable of doing it yourself. That's the true collectivist bias.
People need to realise that the army will not nececerely side with the "goverment" or a crazy general that will autorise the civilian execution.Look no futher than USSR collapse. When the military elite tried to stage a coup and put tanks to the streets of Moscow, the military refused to shoot civilians. Coup failed obviously.
Soldiers are members of society like everyone else. The Hitler Germany or revolutionary France, or USSR during the purges, China in cultural revolution, they all had one thing in common, there was significant popular support for repressions. There were enought people to staff the death camps, forced labour camps, the execution ranges, and such. there were enought people to silently tolerate their existance. There were enought people tolerating the demise of democratic institutions. Not the barrel of a gun forced them.
As long as there is significant physical, ideological and societal isolation of army or state officials, tyrrany is possible, but of soldiers, policemen and goverment workers do not live in isolation, and there is no popular support for repressions, the typical tyrrany is impossible.
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.
If we're going to deal in a fantasy land we set up for ourselves where the conditions just coincidentally happen to favor what we already believe, how about a world where the people can't defend themselves effectively against those in power and get slaughtered almost every time they show resistance. Oh wait, that isn't a fantasy, its human history, from the days we were painting in caves until only a few hundred years ago.
As for the rest, I'm sorry that reality has a collectivist bias. My advice is to deal with it.
The basic unit of human society is the individual. Go up one level and you have the family, which has collective and individual characteristics vis-a-vis society and other families. Keep going up and you find this duality again and again. Up to the largest, most complex structures, organizations like government and corporations, we see the collective need and the individual need bump against each other and create tensions again and again. Sometimes we say more collectivism is right in this area - like, say, employees working on a project and if they disagree with it, they can quit, if not, get to work. On the other hand, we also (ostensibly) encourage and praise whistleblowers.
I'm sorry that you really think pompous declarations intended to ego stroke yourself and put down myself mean anything. Reality has no bias to it. You just wish it does.
My point is that now we see people telling us, "you can't defend yourself. You're not smart enough, or emotionally stable enough, you might panick or go crazy with rage and shoot up a crowd trying to stop a mass shooter. The thief will probably get your gun and kill you and your family. You couldn't stop the government anyway if it tried to oppress the people."
You can't do this, you can't do that, you, prole, aren't capable of it. Not only on self-defense, on so many issues these days. You need the government to do it for you, or stop you from doing it, or make you do it, because you aren't capable of doing it yourself. That's the true collectivist bias.
Nice dodge with MLK. He advocated non-violent resistance as a force of political change. The fact that he applied for a firearm license for personal defense has nothing to do with the current argument. We are arguing about whether or not guns are effective at combating an unspecified and elusive government tyranny. In the frame of the government tyranny argument, mentioning MLK and Malcolm X weakens your argument because the non-violent protests led by King, Rustin, and Randolph had a significantly greater impact than any of the militant actions of the Black Panther Movement. Malcolm X was cooler, I agree, but his methods were quantitatively less effective.
I apologize for the comment about collectivism. You come off as a strict individualist, hence the reason for the comment. That being said, your rant made no sense. I got the idea that you understand the basic premise that all societal structures are based off of a mix of both individualism and collectivism, which is why I apologized. Other than that I got nothing from that paragraph.
You begin to derail in the next part. You're arguing against various poorly conceived what if scenarios as well as whining about any type of restriction like its the end of the world. Guess what There are people who aren't smart enough to own a gun. Lets start at the basic level: people who are severely retarded. Do you disagree? What about violent schizophrenics who are incapable of distinguishing between illusion and reality? There are reasonable controls which can be put in place. You might not like having to enter your gun in a national registry or renew a firearm license every year or pass a basic shooting test of ~50% (police is still ~70% standard right?) or having to take a safety class which explains the laws regarding where you can carry, how to securely store a weapon and an amount of gore videos similar to trains in driver's ed. Measures like these wouldn't infringe upon the rights of the general population, but they would probably decrease the number of people killed with legally owned guns while increasing the culpability of gun owners.
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.
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).
ALL those weapons are legal in the US, they were all made before 1986. Even if you exclude the automatics, there are semi-auto versions of all of them that are practically the same. The only feature they lack is full-auto, and that doesn't make a huge difference due to how guerrillas would have to fight.
It would have been better for the jews, or for the people Stalin killed, or for the people Mao killed, if they could have possibly fought back. Whether or not they win isn't the issue. It is important that they have a chance.
Also, "Most schools of thought" to you just seems to mean Utilitarianism. Kantianism would totally disagree with you. Things are good or bad based on their relation to moral duties. Any oppressed people has more responsibility to protect their own than to worry about the lives of their oppressors, So if a few gestapo officers have to die along the way, oh well sucks to be them.
You also assume that losing is somehow worse than not even trying. If the jews had fought back against the Nazi's, or if the capitalist sympathizers had fought back against Stalin, they may have indeed still died. But it would have been quick. Much quicker than rotting away in some death-camp.
Last, even if you die, you might still support your cause. Martyrdom is in fact a thing.
People who argue that guns should be completely unrestricted in order to prevent a dictatorship or tyrannical US government just seem like guns are personal extensions of their deep hatred and mistrust of the federal government and almost want an apocalyptic evil government attack its own citizens just so that they can prove themselves right.
How some people think that there is a chance that the US government is somehow going to devolve into some facist or dictatorship-type government doesn't make any logical sense. Your arguing against logic. The military is made up of citizens just like yourselves and they aren't going to start dropping bombs on US cities or go shoot up neighborhoods just because a government official tells them to.
On January 30 2013 11:15 white_horse wrote: People who argue that guns should be completely unrestricted in order to prevent a dictatorship or tyrannical US government just seem like guns are personal extensions of their deep hatred and mistrust of the federal government and almost want an apocalyptic evil government attack its own citizens just so that they can prove themselves right.
Few people argue that guns should be completely unrestricted. To use a parallel argument, even though most people believe that citizens should have the right to drive automobiles, that doesn't imply that those people believe that driving cars should be completely unrestricted.
On January 30 2013 11:15 white_horse wrote: How some people think that there is a chance that the US government is somehow going to devolve into some facist or dictatorship-type government doesn't make any logical sense. Your arguing against logic. The military is made up of citizens just like yourselves and they aren't going to start dropping bombs on US cities or go shoot up neighborhoods just because a government official tells them to.
History as well as modern events suggest otherwise. Take a look at the Arab Spring for examples of governments using military force against citizens and armed populaces acting as the only possible defense against it.
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.
If we're going to deal in a fantasy land we set up for ourselves where the conditions just coincidentally happen to favor what we already believe, how about a world where the people can't defend themselves effectively against those in power and get slaughtered almost every time they show resistance. Oh wait, that isn't a fantasy, its human history, from the days we were painting in caves until only a few hundred years ago.
List statistics of black men who survived at least 5 years after killing a member of the KKK.
Martin Luther King, Jr., applied for a gun permit in 1956. He was denied. I wonder why.
Take your demand for statistics and wallow with it in your own ignorance.
As for the rest, I'm sorry that reality has a collectivist bias. My advice is to deal with it.
The basic unit of human society is the individual. Go up one level and you have the family, which has collective and individual characteristics vis-a-vis society and other families. Keep going up and you find this duality again and again. Up to the largest, most complex structures, organizations like government and corporations, we see the collective need and the individual need bump against each other and create tensions again and again. Sometimes we say more collectivism is right in this area - like, say, employees working on a project and if they disagree with it, they can quit, if not, get to work. On the other hand, we also (ostensibly) encourage and praise whistleblowers.
I'm sorry that you really think pompous declarations intended to ego stroke yourself and put down myself mean anything. Reality has no bias to it. You just wish it does.
My point is that now we see people telling us, "you can't defend yourself. You're not smart enough, or emotionally stable enough, you might panick or go crazy with rage and shoot up a crowd trying to stop a mass shooter. The thief will probably get your gun and kill you and your family. You couldn't stop the government anyway if it tried to oppress the people."
You can't do this, you can't do that, you, prole, aren't capable of it. Not only on self-defense, on so many issues these days. You need the government to do it for you, or stop you from doing it, or make you do it, because you aren't capable of doing it yourself. That's the true collectivist bias.
Nice dodge with MLK. He advocated non-violent resistance as a force of political change. The fact that he applied for a firearm license for personal defense has nothing to do with the current argument. We are arguing about whether or not guns are effective at combating an unspecified and elusive government tyranny. In the frame of the government tyranny argument, mentioning MLK and Malcolm X weakens your argument because the non-violent protests led by King, Rustin, and Randolph had a significantly greater impact than any of the militant actions of the Black Panther Movement. Malcolm X was cooler, I agree, but his methods were quantitatively less effective.
I apologize for the comment about collectivism. You come off as a strict individualist, hence the reason for the comment. That being said, your rant made no sense. I got the idea that you understand the basic premise that all societal structures are based off of a mix of both individualism and collectivism, which is why I apologized. Other than that I got nothing from that paragraph.
You begin to derail in the next part. You're arguing against various poorly conceived what if scenarios as well as whining about any type of restriction like its the end of the world. Guess what There are people who aren't smart enough to own a gun. Lets start at the basic level: people who are severely retarded. Do you disagree? What about violent schizophrenics who are incapable of distinguishing between illusion and reality? There are reasonable controls which can be put in place. You might not like having to enter your gun in a national registry or renew a firearm license every year or pass a basic shooting test of ~50% (police is still ~70% standard right?) or having to take a safety class which explains the laws regarding where you can carry, how to securely store a weapon and an amount of gore videos similar to trains in driver's ed. Measures like these wouldn't infringe upon the rights of the general population, but they would probably decrease the number of people killed with legally owned guns while increasing the culpability of gun owners.
you make some excellent points. I just wanted to add that it seems like he is against people generalizing all gun owners as mentally retarded sociopaths with an axe to grind. Somehow he fails to acknowledge the INSANE gun crime levels of the US compared to Canada or the UK or just about any other 'developed' country. That along with the INSANE numbers of guns per capita in the US. You really can't ignore the statistics when they're this obvious...
On January 30 2013 11:15 white_horse wrote: People who argue that guns should be completely unrestricted in order to prevent a dictatorship or tyrannical US government just seem like guns are personal extensions of their deep hatred and mistrust of the federal government and almost want an apocalyptic evil government attack its own citizens just so that they can prove themselves right.
Few people argue that guns should be completely unrestricted. To use a parallel argument, even though most people believe that citizens should have the right to drive automobiles, that doesn't imply that those people believe that driving cars should be completely unrestricted.
On January 30 2013 11:15 white_horse wrote: How some people think that there is a chance that the US government is somehow going to devolve into some facist or dictatorship-type government doesn't make any logical sense. Your arguing against logic. The military is made up of citizens just like yourselves and they aren't going to start dropping bombs on US cities or go shoot up neighborhoods just because a government official tells them to.
History as well as modern events suggest otherwise. Take a look at the Arab Spring for examples of governments using military force against citizens and armed populaces acting as the only possible defense against it.
Right, because the Egyptian army is pretty much the same as the US army... oh wait...
On January 30 2013 11:15 white_horse wrote: People who argue that guns should be completely unrestricted in order to prevent a dictatorship or tyrannical US government just seem like guns are personal extensions of their deep hatred and mistrust of the federal government and almost want an apocalyptic evil government attack its own citizens just so that they can prove themselves right.
Few people argue that guns should be completely unrestricted. To use a parallel argument, even though most people believe that citizens should have the right to drive automobiles, that doesn't imply that those people believe that driving cars should be completely unrestricted.
On January 30 2013 11:15 white_horse wrote: How some people think that there is a chance that the US government is somehow going to devolve into some facist or dictatorship-type government doesn't make any logical sense. Your arguing against logic. The military is made up of citizens just like yourselves and they aren't going to start dropping bombs on US cities or go shoot up neighborhoods just because a government official tells them to.
History as well as modern events suggest otherwise. Take a look at the Arab Spring for examples of governments using military force against citizens and armed populaces acting as the only possible defense against it.
Right, because the Egyptian army is pretty much the same as the US army... oh wait...
What exactly is your point? Please spell it out, since there are a number of flawed arguments and fallacies you could be referring to with your vague statement.
Can't believe people are thinking guns would help you against the government. Ever heard of drones? Good luck.
On January 30 2013 11:15 white_horse wrote: People who argue that guns should be completely unrestricted in order to prevent a dictatorship or tyrannical US government just seem like guns are personal extensions of their deep hatred and mistrust of the federal government and almost want an apocalyptic evil government attack its own citizens just so that they can prove themselves right.
How some people think that there is a chance that the US government is somehow going to devolve into some facist or dictatorship-type government doesn't make any logical sense. Your arguing against logic. The military is made up of citizens just like yourselves and they aren't going to start dropping bombs on US cities or go shoot up neighborhoods just because a government official tells them to.
We suffer from being a country founded by revolution. As such, we have this deep seeded perception that the government is some enemy-like-entity. Its pretty hilarious and really makes it sad to realize that this anti-government resentment comes from something so long ago. That's also why we're so anal about taxation. We didn't like the British and how they taxed us, so somehow we need to make sure we can't tax ourselves either.
On January 30 2013 11:31 Mohdoo wrote: Can't believe people are thinking guns would help you against the government. Ever heard of drones? Good luck.
People arguing for the right to defend themselves (right to bear arms) often do a bad job of describing why this may make sense. This is not the scenario they should be illustrating:
The US Government has wrongfully accused Bob of a crime he did not commit. They know he's innocent. They just don't care.
This summer, one man is going to exterminate the entire US government with his AR-15. Available in 3D.
Nor is it
New City voted against the president-elect. On his first day in office he is going to scramble several F-18s to bomb the city to the ground. Good thing New City has 5000 registered gun owners.
It is very difficult to predict what will happen in a country 50 or 100 years from now. In the wake of an economic meltdown, a major natural disaster, or other calamity, almost anything becomes possible. To say that there's no reason why you would need weaponry to protect your family, possibly from a government entity (not the entirety of the government obviously), is to be very optimistic. You don't keep and bear arms to stop the local swat team from assassinating you, or to destroy Fort Knox. For all I know the tea party could start to receive more and more support, at which point I suggest we all bunker in.
On January 30 2013 11:31 Mohdoo wrote: Can't believe people are thinking guns would help you against the government. Ever heard of drones? Good luck.
People arguing for the right to defend themselves (right to bear arms) often do a bad job of describing why this may make sense. This is not the scenario they should be illustrating:
New City voted against the president-elect. On his first day in office he is going to scramble several F-18s to bomb the city to the ground. Good thing New City has 5000 registered gun owners.
It is very difficult to predict what will happen in a country 50 or 100 years from now. In the wake of an economic meltdown, a major natural disaster, or other calamity, almost anything becomes possible. To say that there's no reason why you would need weaponry to protect your family, possibly from a government entity (not the entirety of the government obviously), is to be very optimistic. You don't keep and bear arms to stop the local swat team from assassinating you, or to destroy Fort Knox. For all I know the tea party could start to receive more and more support, at which point I suggest we all bunker in.
Can you describe a situation where owning a gun could help against the government? I can see the value in having a gun in some post-disaster free for all where people compete for clean water. I can not imagine any situation where an armed population would be able to push back any amount of government will. Its not like the revolutionary war, where both sides pew pew against each other across some field. Nowadays, we just throw drones at a situation and don't even deploy troops to a lot of places. Just look at all the shit we killed in Pakistan with drones. Now lets imagine actual air-force action. Or the fact that a lot of our navy could get missiles pretty deep into our country from out of range of anything else that would go against it. Its just not possible. Send one plane at an area, bomb their power plants and its completely fucked. How about send 2 and wipe out a bunch of houses, their hospitals, and some other shit. Or level an entire city from the ocean.
On January 30 2013 11:31 Mohdoo wrote: Can't believe people are thinking guns would help you against the government. Ever heard of drones? Good luck.
People arguing for the right to defend themselves (right to bear arms) often do a bad job of describing why this may make sense. This is not the scenario they should be illustrating:
The US Government has wrongfully accused Bob of a crime he did not commit. They know he's innocent. They just don't care.
This summer, one man is going to exterminate the entire US government with his AR-15. Available in 3D.
Nor is it
New City voted against the president-elect. On his first day in office he is going to scramble several F-18s to bomb the city to the ground. Good thing New City has 5000 registered gun owners.
It is very difficult to predict what will happen in a country 50 or 100 years from now. In the wake of an economic meltdown, a major natural disaster, or other calamity, almost anything becomes possible. To say that there's no reason why you would need weaponry to protect your family, possibly from a government entity (not the entirety of the government obviously), is to be very optimistic. You don't keep and bear arms to stop the local swat team from assassinating you, or to destroy Fort Knox. For all I know the tea party could start to receive more and more support, at which point I suggest we all bunker in.
Can you describe a situation where owning a gun could help against the government? I can see the value in having a gun in some post-disaster free for all where people compete for clean water. I can not imagine any situation where an armed population would be able to push back any amount of government will. Its not like the revolutionary war, where both sides pew pew against each other across some field. Nowadays, we just throw drones at a situation and don't even deploy troops to a lot of places. Just look at all the shit we killed in Pakistan with drones. Now lets imagine actual air-force action. Or the fact that a lot of our navy could get missiles pretty deep into our country from out of range of anything else that would go against it. Its just not possible. Send one plane at an area, bomb their power plants and its completely fucked. How about send 2 and wipe out a bunch of houses, their hospitals, and some other shit. Or level an entire city from the ocean.
Those would most likely not be the goals of the government entity. Their goal would more likely be control than destruction. If their goal was destruction then yes, a neighborhood of gun owners couldn't do much. Even so, the military would not allow itself to be used for such a purpose, I would hope (but there have been exceptions in history).
I feel like this is relevant... Everyone keeps going "look how dangerous everything is" but we live in the safest time in human history by a long shot and sure, America has its faults, but it also has 360 million people compared to countries with 9-10 million and I do understand the idea of per capita counting but it is also well known that the more squished (couldn't think of a better word) people are together in cities, the more crime rises rather than rural areas. And I mean crime per capita (like per 1,000)
So I don't know how I feel, I believe the restrictions should be heavier but I don't agree guns should be outlawed, even automatic weapons.
On January 30 2013 11:31 Mohdoo wrote: Can't believe people are thinking guns would help you against the government. Ever heard of drones? Good luck.
People arguing for the right to defend themselves (right to bear arms) often do a bad job of describing why this may make sense. This is not the scenario they should be illustrating:
The US Government has wrongfully accused Bob of a crime he did not commit. They know he's innocent. They just don't care.
This summer, one man is going to exterminate the entire US government with his AR-15. Available in 3D.
Nor is it
New City voted against the president-elect. On his first day in office he is going to scramble several F-18s to bomb the city to the ground. Good thing New City has 5000 registered gun owners.
It is very difficult to predict what will happen in a country 50 or 100 years from now. In the wake of an economic meltdown, a major natural disaster, or other calamity, almost anything becomes possible. To say that there's no reason why you would need weaponry to protect your family, possibly from a government entity (not the entirety of the government obviously), is to be very optimistic. You don't keep and bear arms to stop the local swat team from assassinating you, or to destroy Fort Knox. For all I know the tea party could start to receive more and more support, at which point I suggest we all bunker in.
Can you describe a situation where owning a gun could help against the government? I can see the value in having a gun in some post-disaster free for all where people compete for clean water. I can not imagine any situation where an armed population would be able to push back any amount of government will. Its not like the revolutionary war, where both sides pew pew against each other across some field. Nowadays, we just throw drones at a situation and don't even deploy troops to a lot of places. Just look at all the shit we killed in Pakistan with drones. Now lets imagine actual air-force action. Or the fact that a lot of our navy could get missiles pretty deep into our country from out of range of anything else that would go against it. Its just not possible. Send one plane at an area, bomb their power plants and its completely fucked. How about send 2 and wipe out a bunch of houses, their hospitals, and some other shit. Or level an entire city from the ocean.
Those would most likely not be the goals of the government entity. Their goal would more likely be control than destruction. If their goal was destruction then yes, a neighborhood of gun owners couldn't do much. Even so, the military would not allow itself to be used for such a purpose, I would hope (but there have been exceptions in history).
In a situation where a government entity with tons of guns starts to lose power, how do you think they'll get power back? The point is that in a situation where any amount of fighting is necessary, it will be a steam roll. If its nonviolent to begin with, having a gun does nothing anyway. If the situation you are describing is one where the people do not recognize the government and they want a new one, whether they have guns or not, it will either work or it won't. If guns are necessary, they're gonna get destroyed. If guns aren't necessary, as you describe, then the guns don't do anything anyway. My point is that there is not a single situation that escalates to violence against the government where any amount of gun rights would have the slightest impact.
This is my opinion in one video. I'm not sure if this channel has been brought up since there's so many pages on this subject. I was borderline on the subject and this guys logic alone made me pro-gun. Go through a lot of his videos if one doesn't convince you. I know this specific one is only about one part of the issue (Specifically, Obama's Gun Law).
Also the argument on why anybody 'needs' an assault rifle.
On January 30 2013 11:31 Mohdoo wrote: Can't believe people are thinking guns would help you against the government. Ever heard of drones? Good luck.
People arguing for the right to defend themselves (right to bear arms) often do a bad job of describing why this may make sense. This is not the scenario they should be illustrating:
The US Government has wrongfully accused Bob of a crime he did not commit. They know he's innocent. They just don't care.
This summer, one man is going to exterminate the entire US government with his AR-15. Available in 3D.
Nor is it
New City voted against the president-elect. On his first day in office he is going to scramble several F-18s to bomb the city to the ground. Good thing New City has 5000 registered gun owners.
It is very difficult to predict what will happen in a country 50 or 100 years from now. In the wake of an economic meltdown, a major natural disaster, or other calamity, almost anything becomes possible. To say that there's no reason why you would need weaponry to protect your family, possibly from a government entity (not the entirety of the government obviously), is to be very optimistic. You don't keep and bear arms to stop the local swat team from assassinating you, or to destroy Fort Knox. For all I know the tea party could start to receive more and more support, at which point I suggest we all bunker in.
Can you describe a situation where owning a gun could help against the government? I can see the value in having a gun in some post-disaster free for all where people compete for clean water. I can not imagine any situation where an armed population would be able to push back any amount of government will. Its not like the revolutionary war, where both sides pew pew against each other across some field. Nowadays, we just throw drones at a situation and don't even deploy troops to a lot of places. Just look at all the shit we killed in Pakistan with drones. Now lets imagine actual air-force action. Or the fact that a lot of our navy could get missiles pretty deep into our country from out of range of anything else that would go against it. Its just not possible. Send one plane at an area, bomb their power plants and its completely fucked. How about send 2 and wipe out a bunch of houses, their hospitals, and some other shit. Or level an entire city from the ocean.
Those would most likely not be the goals of the government entity. Their goal would more likely be control than destruction. If their goal was destruction then yes, a neighborhood of gun owners couldn't do much. Even so, the military would not allow itself to be used for such a purpose, I would hope (but there have been exceptions in history).
In a situation where a government entity with tons of guns starts to lose power, how do you think they'll get power back? The point is that in a situation where any amount of fighting is necessary, it will be a steam roll.
If one government agent were to come to your house to take your child away, and you were armed, it would not necessarily be a steamroll. I'm not advocating shooting child protective services tomorrow, but in extreme cases (akin to the Nazi era which happened less than 100 years ago) there are many possible scenarios like that.
On January 30 2013 11:15 white_horse wrote: People who argue that guns should be completely unrestricted in order to prevent a dictatorship or tyrannical US government just seem like guns are personal extensions of their deep hatred and mistrust of the federal government and almost want an apocalyptic evil government attack its own citizens just so that they can prove themselves right.
Few people argue that guns should be completely unrestricted. To use a parallel argument, even though most people believe that citizens should have the right to drive automobiles, that doesn't imply that those people believe that driving cars should be completely unrestricted.
On January 30 2013 11:15 white_horse wrote: How some people think that there is a chance that the US government is somehow going to devolve into some facist or dictatorship-type government doesn't make any logical sense. Your arguing against logic. The military is made up of citizens just like yourselves and they aren't going to start dropping bombs on US cities or go shoot up neighborhoods just because a government official tells them to.
History as well as modern events suggest otherwise. Take a look at the Arab Spring for examples of governments using military force against citizens and armed populaces acting as the only possible defense against it.
Right, because the Egyptian army is pretty much the same as the US army... oh wait...
Compairing western countries to Arab and many (other) African countries is tricky. A lot there has to do with clans. Making sure you're getting people who belong to your clan in the government and in the military. Then it's a lot easier to get the military to fire at demonstrating clans who oppose you.
Edit: Should have used tribe in stead of clan I think...
On January 30 2013 11:15 white_horse wrote: People who argue that guns should be completely unrestricted in order to prevent a dictatorship or tyrannical US government just seem like guns are personal extensions of their deep hatred and mistrust of the federal government and almost want an apocalyptic evil government attack its own citizens just so that they can prove themselves right.
Few people argue that guns should be completely unrestricted. To use a parallel argument, even though most people believe that citizens should have the right to drive automobiles, that doesn't imply that those people believe that driving cars should be completely unrestricted.
On January 30 2013 11:15 white_horse wrote: How some people think that there is a chance that the US government is somehow going to devolve into some facist or dictatorship-type government doesn't make any logical sense. Your arguing against logic. The military is made up of citizens just like yourselves and they aren't going to start dropping bombs on US cities or go shoot up neighborhoods just because a government official tells them to.
History as well as modern events suggest otherwise. Take a look at the Arab Spring for examples of governments using military force against citizens and armed populaces acting as the only possible defense against it.
Right, because the Egyptian army is pretty much the same as the US army... oh wait...
What exactly is your point? Please spell it out, since there are a number of flawed arguments and fallacies you could be referring to with your vague statement.
Sorry, I just got sick of all the arguments with about 2 seconds of thought put into them and I stooped to their level. I suppose if you're willing to give me a serious discussion, I'll start with a few things that jump out at me.
1) Although anecdotal, I seem to see many gun advocates arguing for unrestricted access. Obviously I have the sense to understand this is not how most people feel, but the media is filled with people (e.g. the NRA) who scream and shout any time gun control is even mentioned. I would think most people would be behind 'sensible' gun control laws that are both effective at dealing with crime but do not infringe upon responsible gun owners' "rights." That being said, a lot of the arguments I see simply aim to defend the responsibility of every person to carry a gun. Perhaps you could present an argument against the common gun control position with a little more sense than I usually see and I'll try to respond as best as I can.
2) The US military is, by many standards, the most powerful military in the world. It would take a very contrived situation to try and see another military defeat them in conventional warfare.
3) Obviously guerrilla warfare would be much for effective for a US citizen militia to attempt, but this I think is quite ridiculous to speculate about. What tyrannical superpowers in the past have had is popular support, not a lack of an armed enemy. The US isn't exactly very close to civil war right now in my opinion, and so such a massive societal shift would mean a lot more people being concerned about being attacked by their government than we currently see in the US. Perhaps if this changed then there 'would' be popular support for gun ownership, but right now it simply doesn't make sense to me.
4) A civilian's ability to fight the US government would be shockingly limited if their electricity was cut off. Sure, there are many people who can survive just fine, but the vast majority, I would argue, would simply die because of lack of survival skills, not lack of a gun to shoot back with.
5) Arguing for the benefit of automatic or other weapons as integral for defeating a hypothetical US dictator and his crazy plot is tough enough, but that's far from the only flaw. There have been huge shifts in social values through movements that were pretty much non-violent. Of course there are examples like India's independence and the US civil rights movement, but there are other examples as well. People rarely smoke cigarettes anymore. The public has been educated better and there have been restrictions placed on the sale of them that don't prevent their use but do limit their negative impact.
6) Just to add more of the common arguments - carrying a gun around on the street for self defence from mugging or something is quite likely to escalate the situation.
7) Statistically the US owns more guns and has more gun crime than other so called 'developed' countries like the UK or Canada. Perhaps this is more than just a correlation...
On January 30 2013 11:31 Mohdoo wrote: Can't believe people are thinking guns would help you against the government. Ever heard of drones? Good luck.
People arguing for the right to defend themselves (right to bear arms) often do a bad job of describing why this may make sense. This is not the scenario they should be illustrating:
The US Government has wrongfully accused Bob of a crime he did not commit. They know he's innocent. They just don't care.
This summer, one man is going to exterminate the entire US government with his AR-15. Available in 3D.
Nor is it
New City voted against the president-elect. On his first day in office he is going to scramble several F-18s to bomb the city to the ground. Good thing New City has 5000 registered gun owners.
It is very difficult to predict what will happen in a country 50 or 100 years from now. In the wake of an economic meltdown, a major natural disaster, or other calamity, almost anything becomes possible. To say that there's no reason why you would need weaponry to protect your family, possibly from a government entity (not the entirety of the government obviously), is to be very optimistic. You don't keep and bear arms to stop the local swat team from assassinating you, or to destroy Fort Knox. For all I know the tea party could start to receive more and more support, at which point I suggest we all bunker in.
Can you describe a situation where owning a gun could help against the government? I can see the value in having a gun in some post-disaster free for all where people compete for clean water. I can not imagine any situation where an armed population would be able to push back any amount of government will. Its not like the revolutionary war, where both sides pew pew against each other across some field. Nowadays, we just throw drones at a situation and don't even deploy troops to a lot of places. Just look at all the shit we killed in Pakistan with drones. Now lets imagine actual air-force action. Or the fact that a lot of our navy could get missiles pretty deep into our country from out of range of anything else that would go against it. Its just not possible. Send one plane at an area, bomb their power plants and its completely fucked. How about send 2 and wipe out a bunch of houses, their hospitals, and some other shit. Or level an entire city from the ocean.
Those would most likely not be the goals of the government entity. Their goal would more likely be control than destruction. If their goal was destruction then yes, a neighborhood of gun owners couldn't do much. Even so, the military would not allow itself to be used for such a purpose, I would hope (but there have been exceptions in history).
In a situation where a government entity with tons of guns starts to lose power, how do you think they'll get power back? The point is that in a situation where any amount of fighting is necessary, it will be a steam roll.
If one government agent were to come to your house to take your child away, and you were armed, it would not necessarily be a steamroll. I'm not advocating shooting child protective services tomorrow, but in extreme cases (akin to the Nazi era which happened less than 100 years ago) there are many possible scenarios like that.
This situation doesn't make sense at all. Why is the government suddenly stealing babies? Why is it important enough to take place, but not important enough to enforce? Why wouldn't this be reported to someone followed by an actual group of armed people coming to make sure it does happen?
Someone isn't able to resist arrest current day either. If child protective services come for your kid, and you try to ward them off with a gun, what do you think will eventually happen? You keep the kid? Even in our current government, its impossible to make that work, let alone in a more oppressive one.
EPT
