|
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. |
So I guess the conclusion is
Owning guns = Owning nukes
Gun laws = Slavery
Am I following the last three pages right--I just want to be clear.
|
On April 19 2013 02:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:37 FrankWalls wrote:i'm baffled that people still think that dems and republicans are vastly different beside some few hot button issues. time and time again government does the same shit whether dem controlled or republican controlled On April 19 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:24 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 02:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nukes and slavery/secession kind of seem irrelevant to this discussion, tbh, don't know why everyone is talking about them rather than... guns. Well, probably because actual gun issues were talked over n times already. The whole gun issue will solve itself as all societal issues do. In time. With current trends (so barring major economical and social disaster) sooner or later gun ownership will drop until it becomes small minority issue and majority will then just easily do whatever they want to do about that whole issue. Probably something like most other wealthy countries. Except gun sales and ownership are up... and have been going up for some time... shh don't spoil his world where america will assimilate to his culture in time. it might spoil his dream! But they are different. If you look at any recent election there are huge racial divides for minorities, People living just outside of a country that's filled with a single city. Its not even regional divides anymore its racial and country divides that define national politics. No where else other then gun control is this any more prevalent. People who live in the city by and far believe in gun control because they see gun violence first hand all the time. No one can get elected by "blaming the minorities" so instead the entire political structure is based on blaming the guns. You leave the city where there isn't gun violence and there is a positive attitude tword guns and the local security that the towns feel with guns and you get these easily fooled people into believing that the city folk want to take your guns and take away your security. Both sides use emotional arguments so easily and so effectively that there really can't be compromise's or barely any sensible debate.
you can say they stand for different issues like race and gay marriage and gun control, but all they are doing is using these things as a means to an end. when you boil it down, hot button topics like this are nothing more to them than a way to incite debate and infect the public dialogue in a facade while they roll in corporate cash and laugh at us. the parties aren't vastly different at all
|
On April 19 2013 02:37 FrankWalls wrote:i'm baffled that people still think that dems and republicans are vastly different beside some few hot button issues. time and time again government does the same shit whether dem controlled or republican controlled Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:24 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 02:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nukes and slavery/secession kind of seem irrelevant to this discussion, tbh, don't know why everyone is talking about them rather than... guns. Well, probably because actual gun issues were talked over n times already. The whole gun issue will solve itself as all societal issues do. In time. With current trends (so barring major economical and social disaster) sooner or later gun ownership will drop until it becomes small minority issue and majority will then just easily do whatever they want to do about that whole issue. Probably something like most other wealthy countries. Except gun sales and ownership are up... and have been going up for some time... shh dont spoil his world where america will assimilate to his culture in time. it might spoil his dream!
America is not some unique snowflake, don't kid yourself.
|
On April 19 2013 02:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
They are people. I wouldn't have slavery in my country, but I also wouldn't try to tell the South they can't have slaves.
I would. That's because I'm a decent human being. Human rights trump self-determination and this is a widely accepted fact. By allowing the South to have slaves, you are saying that it's ok for them to not allow slaves the freedom of self-determination. You're sticking to obscure ideology for the sake of ideology (and contradicting yourself in the process), and people that do that are some of the worst kinds of people in politics. Isn't self-determination a human right? Aren't you infringing on the South's self-determination? You realize we still sort of have slavery right? Prisons use chain gangs for manual labor against their will all the time. Are you OK with that?
He meant self-determination of individuals trumps self-determination of societies. I do not agree with that, but that is what he means I assume. I would just say that slavery is immoral and something being immoral trumps self-determination.
|
|
|
On April 19 2013 02:53 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 01:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons. Well, for one, nuclear weapons aren't really a part of modern warfare, nor would they be useful in any way in an actual civil-war scenario, for either side. If there was some kind of massive, country-wide revolt against the government, they can't exactly just start nuking their own people. Public opinion would destroy them at that point, even if no one but rebels died in the nuclear blast. Plus the damage they would be wreaking upon their own environment, economy, and people would be so catastrophic and massive that the result would be worse than even a revolt could be. For the rebels, nukes would be equally useless for largely the same reasons. Following that logic, we can talk about drones, tanks, and all the rest of that high-tech, mass-destruction stuff. All of that is useless in the kind of war that a revolt against the US government would result in. You can't use that stuff on your own civilian population without turning public opinion against yourself so much that you'd lose the war anyway. Furthermore, our military would see massive abandonment by it's own troops if any kind of force like that was used against civilian populations. Guns are a pretty good deterrent to an overreach of the federal/state governments. A lack of guns isn't necessarily going to guarantee the formation of a despotic totalitarian government, but an abundance of guns, combined with the historical freedoms and education which our citizens posses, can keep said totalitarianism from even beginning to form. Furthermore, the purpose of the Second Amendment is not only to give you the ability to fight back against an oppressive government. It is also a deterrent to foreign invasion, and more importantly a guarantee of the private citizen to be able to secure and protect his own property and family. Nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass, indiscriminate destruction are not necessary for any of the main arguments why the Second Amendment exists. A grenade is not a useful tool for protecting property and people. It is not necessary to deter foreign invasion, nor is it necessary to engage in resistance to a hostile, oppressive government. This is all ignoring the fact that your nuclear weapon/grenade/tank argument is actually the fallacy of the slippery slope. historical freedoms and education which our citizens posses and wealth are the only things standing between you and totalitarianism. Guns play insignificant role compared to that. That argument is completely based on premises that ignore actual history. Oppressive governments are not separate from the population they govern, they always have high degree of support from local population and even higher degree of indifference from local population. Meaning that you cannot count on too much of a majority to support the uprising. That means if army is with the government, they are safe, if not they are doomed anyway, citizens guns being irrelevant. If government has little support from the populace it will fall anyway no matter what army decides to do and how armed is the populace. As for deterring foreign invasion, yes, 200 years ago, and even then not a big one. It is absolutely no deterrent for invasion today. The only arguments for gun rights that might turn out to be rational come from self-defense and other similar points. Guns do play a role, just as education, wealth, and tradition play roles. We can argue about how large a role they play, but at the end of the day, a government must necessarily be more wary of an armed populace than an unarmed one. Point to me the history that proves guns are irrelevant to the discussion. Oppressive governments do not always have majority support, in fact, they usually don't when they begin (revolution). Usually it is a violent minority that takes power and forces the semblance of majority support through re-education and persecution. The military being with the government is an important question, of course, but what of when the military splits? Or if the military largely stays with the government, does all resistance end? Should the resistance just lay down and die because the military is against them? Guns would then become all the more important in that scenario. Many governments have existed without true popular support. The ability of them to exist and remain existing is proportional to the inability of the populace to express, with force, their displeasure. It is absolutely a deterrent, though that is more irrelevant due to our position as the worlds only military super-power. 100 million armed citizens on top of the military would make an invasion almost impossible to effectively execute, and would make occupation a bitter fantasy. Self-defense is obviously the most relevant, but the other arguments, more original in nature, are still rational. The historical experience that I am talking about is that people revolt successfully guns or no guns. The only relevant factor always (in the long term) is how much support that particular revolt has among the population. That level of support is affected by tradition, education, wealth, stability, not by gun ownership. Having a gun does not make me more likely to sympathise with particular movement. I said "high degree of support", not majority. Minority is enough if it is big enough  . Split army scenarios might be decided by armed populace. But only in like 1% (whatever is the actual number it is low) of possible splits. Is it worth it to accept all the bad things gun ownership brings for 1% chance of preventing something that will likely not even happen ? Basically it is non-factor in the calculation. Nobody actually would invade US to occupy it, again guns or no guns. It is too costly no matter what. They would invade to inflict damage. And for that armed citizenry , and I mean armed with what is legal and reasonable to own, is absolutely no deterrent. So first argument is non-argument because it solves low % of scenarios in a situation that is even more unlikely. Second argument does not apply due to realities of modern world. Only the last one remains.
Armed resistance against a modern military is totally possible given small arms. Guerrilla warfare is a thing. Sure, no number of AR-15's is going to stop a tank, but plenty of other things easily acquired by civilians can. Fertilizer is extremely explosive, and enough of it can totally knock the tracks off a tank. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been disabling tanks all along with nothing but small arms and improvised weapons.
And even so, tanks and jets and such aren't really very good for occupation anyways. Tanks can't kick down your door and search your house, and jets can't police the streets.
|
But you haven't shown why those revolts succeed, you've only said why you think they succeed. And I don't disagree with the point that tradition, wealth, and popular support are important factors, possibly more important than gun ownership. However, I stand by the argument that high rates of gun ownership are a determining factor, especially if you consider the idea that a government would be more hesitant to engage in behaviors that would lead to the revolting of an armed populace without either minimizing the ability of the populace to use their guns or by taking the guns away entirely.
Why someone invades is irrelevant to the fact that invading a country with a heavily armed, hostile populace is always going to be more difficult than invading a country with a disarmed populace. And invasions cannot be executed without bases of operation within the territory being invaded, occupation is always a necessity in any kind of large-scale invasion, even if occupation is not the long-term goal. Occupying, even for a short-term, a heavily armed nation will necessarily be more difficult than a disarmed one. Just look at the most recent wars and military engagements that the United States has been involved in for evidence.
The arguments stand, even if they are not as relevant in the modern day as they were in the past. They do not suddenly become irrational now that they are less relevant. And as I said before, it is clear that self-defense and protection of property by the private citizen is far more relevant to the discussion. But don't discount the other arguments just because they are less relevant. They still are rational arguments, and they still are relevant to some degree, thought he degree to which they are relevant remains debatable.
|
On April 19 2013 02:57 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:44 Sermokala wrote:On April 19 2013 02:37 FrankWalls wrote:i'm baffled that people still think that dems and republicans are vastly different beside some few hot button issues. time and time again government does the same shit whether dem controlled or republican controlled On April 19 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:24 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 02:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nukes and slavery/secession kind of seem irrelevant to this discussion, tbh, don't know why everyone is talking about them rather than... guns. Well, probably because actual gun issues were talked over n times already. The whole gun issue will solve itself as all societal issues do. In time. With current trends (so barring major economical and social disaster) sooner or later gun ownership will drop until it becomes small minority issue and majority will then just easily do whatever they want to do about that whole issue. Probably something like most other wealthy countries. Except gun sales and ownership are up... and have been going up for some time... shh don't spoil his world where america will assimilate to his culture in time. it might spoil his dream! But they are different. If you look at any recent election there are huge racial divides for minorities, People living just outside of a country that's filled with a single city. Its not even regional divides anymore its racial and country divides that define national politics. No where else other then gun control is this any more prevalent. People who live in the city by and far believe in gun control because they see gun violence first hand all the time. No one can get elected by "blaming the minorities" so instead the entire political structure is based on blaming the guns. You leave the city where there isn't gun violence and there is a positive attitude tword guns and the local security that the towns feel with guns and you get these easily fooled people into believing that the city folk want to take your guns and take away your security. Both sides use emotional arguments so easily and so effectively that there really can't be compromise's or barely any sensible debate. you can say they stand for different issues like race and gay marriage and gun control, but all they are doing is using these things as a means to an end. when you boil it down, hot button topics like this are nothing more to them than a way to incite debate and infect the public dialogue in a facade while they roll in corporate cash and laugh at us. the parties aren't vastly different at all
Measure of difference depends on context. From European point of view both parties (as far as their mainstream goes) are extremely similar in economics. You have no relevant left-wing party at all and only some Democrats are barely in the center. That is ideologically speaking. In practice all parties do very similar shit everywhere in the first world.
|
Again gun sales is not the same as number of gun owners. You know that one person can buy more than one gun ? 
|
On April 19 2013 02:56 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:24 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 02:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nukes and slavery/secession kind of seem irrelevant to this discussion, tbh, don't know why everyone is talking about them rather than... guns. Well, probably because actual gun issues were talked over n times already. The whole gun issue will solve itself as all societal issues do. In time. With current trends (so barring major economical and social disaster) sooner or later gun ownership will drop until it becomes small minority issue and majority will then just easily do whatever they want to do about that whole issue. Probably something like most other wealthy countries. Except gun sales and ownership are up... and have been going up for some time... I read that actual number of gun owners is down, but frankly that just determines if what I am describing will come sooner or later. The attitude shifts come in packages, being anti-gun is part of the package that is becoming more prevalent in the long run.
Gun ownership is up in the US. And frankly, there is absolutely no evidence that being anti-gun is becoming more popular in recent times. If you're arguing that traditionally leftist ideas are on the rise and generally are inevitable anyway, again, this is not exactly true. The radical shift you're discussing has been "just around the corner" for a very long time; in actuality it's more "no, not that corner, the next one. No not that one either, the next one!" There is more evidence to support a kind of cyclic movement of public political opinion than a true shift toward one side or the other. Even so, this argument is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of whether guns should be allowed or not. Boldly declaring that they won't be allowed in the near or far future anyway is not an argument, nor is it useful. It's just a prediction, perhaps based on some evidence, but ultimately baseless in any meaningful way.
edit: Whether gun ownership is up or down is also a hot debate in of itself, some surveys saying yes, others saying no. And even further, it all depends upon what criteria one uses. Gun ownership has risen since 2010, but fallen since 1970.
|
On April 19 2013 03:01 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:53 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 02:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 01:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons. Well, for one, nuclear weapons aren't really a part of modern warfare, nor would they be useful in any way in an actual civil-war scenario, for either side. If there was some kind of massive, country-wide revolt against the government, they can't exactly just start nuking their own people. Public opinion would destroy them at that point, even if no one but rebels died in the nuclear blast. Plus the damage they would be wreaking upon their own environment, economy, and people would be so catastrophic and massive that the result would be worse than even a revolt could be. For the rebels, nukes would be equally useless for largely the same reasons. Following that logic, we can talk about drones, tanks, and all the rest of that high-tech, mass-destruction stuff. All of that is useless in the kind of war that a revolt against the US government would result in. You can't use that stuff on your own civilian population without turning public opinion against yourself so much that you'd lose the war anyway. Furthermore, our military would see massive abandonment by it's own troops if any kind of force like that was used against civilian populations. Guns are a pretty good deterrent to an overreach of the federal/state governments. A lack of guns isn't necessarily going to guarantee the formation of a despotic totalitarian government, but an abundance of guns, combined with the historical freedoms and education which our citizens posses, can keep said totalitarianism from even beginning to form. Furthermore, the purpose of the Second Amendment is not only to give you the ability to fight back against an oppressive government. It is also a deterrent to foreign invasion, and more importantly a guarantee of the private citizen to be able to secure and protect his own property and family. Nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass, indiscriminate destruction are not necessary for any of the main arguments why the Second Amendment exists. A grenade is not a useful tool for protecting property and people. It is not necessary to deter foreign invasion, nor is it necessary to engage in resistance to a hostile, oppressive government. This is all ignoring the fact that your nuclear weapon/grenade/tank argument is actually the fallacy of the slippery slope. historical freedoms and education which our citizens posses and wealth are the only things standing between you and totalitarianism. Guns play insignificant role compared to that. That argument is completely based on premises that ignore actual history. Oppressive governments are not separate from the population they govern, they always have high degree of support from local population and even higher degree of indifference from local population. Meaning that you cannot count on too much of a majority to support the uprising. That means if army is with the government, they are safe, if not they are doomed anyway, citizens guns being irrelevant. If government has little support from the populace it will fall anyway no matter what army decides to do and how armed is the populace. As for deterring foreign invasion, yes, 200 years ago, and even then not a big one. It is absolutely no deterrent for invasion today. The only arguments for gun rights that might turn out to be rational come from self-defense and other similar points. Guns do play a role, just as education, wealth, and tradition play roles. We can argue about how large a role they play, but at the end of the day, a government must necessarily be more wary of an armed populace than an unarmed one. Point to me the history that proves guns are irrelevant to the discussion. Oppressive governments do not always have majority support, in fact, they usually don't when they begin (revolution). Usually it is a violent minority that takes power and forces the semblance of majority support through re-education and persecution. The military being with the government is an important question, of course, but what of when the military splits? Or if the military largely stays with the government, does all resistance end? Should the resistance just lay down and die because the military is against them? Guns would then become all the more important in that scenario. Many governments have existed without true popular support. The ability of them to exist and remain existing is proportional to the inability of the populace to express, with force, their displeasure. It is absolutely a deterrent, though that is more irrelevant due to our position as the worlds only military super-power. 100 million armed citizens on top of the military would make an invasion almost impossible to effectively execute, and would make occupation a bitter fantasy. Self-defense is obviously the most relevant, but the other arguments, more original in nature, are still rational. The historical experience that I am talking about is that people revolt successfully guns or no guns. The only relevant factor always (in the long term) is how much support that particular revolt has among the population. That level of support is affected by tradition, education, wealth, stability, not by gun ownership. Having a gun does not make me more likely to sympathise with particular movement. I said "high degree of support", not majority. Minority is enough if it is big enough . Split army scenarios might be decided by armed populace. But only in like 1% (whatever is the actual number it is low) of possible splits. Is it worth it to accept all the bad things gun ownership brings for 1% chance of preventing something that will likely not even happen ? Basically it is non-factor in the calculation. Nobody actually would invade US to occupy it, again guns or no guns. It is too costly no matter what. They would invade to inflict damage. And for that armed citizenry , and I mean armed with what is legal and reasonable to own, is absolutely no deterrent. So first argument is non-argument because it solves low % of scenarios in a situation that is even more unlikely. Second argument does not apply due to realities of modern world. Only the last one remains. Armed resistance against a modern military is totally possible given small arms. Guerrilla warfare is a thing. Sure, no number of AR-15's is going to stop a tank, but plenty of other things easily acquired by civilians can. Fertilizer is extremely explosive, and enough of it can totally knock the tracks off a tank. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been disabling tanks all along with nothing but small arms and improvised weapons. And even so, tanks and jets and such aren't really very good for occupation anyways. Tanks can't kick down your door and search your house, and jets can't police the streets.
You don't need explosives to knock out tanks, tangle wire over a long enough stretch will dislodge tank treads unless its cleared first. Pretty much anything that can build up and fit inside the slits of the tread will eventually wear it away.
But yes, fertilizer, gasoline, supply lines, etc...
It today's modern times, since no one lives behind castle walls, its impossible to siege anything (as in block off all movement and starve them over time) which is how armies *actually* beat fortifications. Block off farms, people starve, people surrender.
"guerrilla warfare" works because it removes the big advantage of an army (the ability to siege fortifications) and forces a larger army to chase a smaller one. It costs more to mobilize a large army than it does to mobilize a smaller one--so over time the larger army just can't afford to keep chasing.
An invading army could employ a scorched earth policy. Burn all farms, destroy all walmarts, not chase rebels but instead flatten all cities and all towns and cut power, water, and food supplies. Poison water lines, rivers, wells, destroy cables, internet, electricity, blow up damns, etc... Make the US uninhabitable and let rebels run in the mountains. Leave, and only come back when rebels try to rebuild something.
However--once you're done doing something like that what's to gain from conquering a piece of dirt that has no water, no food, no infrastructure and very little resources?
In the end, because we don't live in castles, "invasions" won't happen since its not worth the cost and its cheaper to just become allies instead.
|
On April 19 2013 03:01 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:53 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 02:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 01:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 19 2013 00:10 Millitron wrote:
I think its funny that people in this thread are trying to say that pro-gun people are only defending semi-automatics, and that we're all fine with fully-automatic guns being restricted. I'm certainly not. I would absolutely have fully-automatic guns be legal. I'm arguing for semi-automatics to be legal right now because that's a more pressing issue, that's a battle I might be able to win. The fight for fully-automatic guns is over for now, no point in arguing for them until everyone agrees semi's should be legal.
If you want me to argue for fully-automatics as well, I totally can. Honestly, most of the arguments are the same. No. Let's get straight to the point and argue about nuclear weapons. Since the Second Amendment is supposed to give us the ability to overthrow an oppressive government by arming citizens, why can we have nuclear weapons since they are a part of modern warfare? And honestly, most of the arguments are the same, as you said (There are even some better arguments, no one has died from private nuclear weapons in America, so they are obviously 100% safe)! And that is why the logic is flawed and wrong, whether it be applied to semi-auto, full-auto, or nuclear weapons. Well, for one, nuclear weapons aren't really a part of modern warfare, nor would they be useful in any way in an actual civil-war scenario, for either side. If there was some kind of massive, country-wide revolt against the government, they can't exactly just start nuking their own people. Public opinion would destroy them at that point, even if no one but rebels died in the nuclear blast. Plus the damage they would be wreaking upon their own environment, economy, and people would be so catastrophic and massive that the result would be worse than even a revolt could be. For the rebels, nukes would be equally useless for largely the same reasons. Following that logic, we can talk about drones, tanks, and all the rest of that high-tech, mass-destruction stuff. All of that is useless in the kind of war that a revolt against the US government would result in. You can't use that stuff on your own civilian population without turning public opinion against yourself so much that you'd lose the war anyway. Furthermore, our military would see massive abandonment by it's own troops if any kind of force like that was used against civilian populations. Guns are a pretty good deterrent to an overreach of the federal/state governments. A lack of guns isn't necessarily going to guarantee the formation of a despotic totalitarian government, but an abundance of guns, combined with the historical freedoms and education which our citizens posses, can keep said totalitarianism from even beginning to form. Furthermore, the purpose of the Second Amendment is not only to give you the ability to fight back against an oppressive government. It is also a deterrent to foreign invasion, and more importantly a guarantee of the private citizen to be able to secure and protect his own property and family. Nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass, indiscriminate destruction are not necessary for any of the main arguments why the Second Amendment exists. A grenade is not a useful tool for protecting property and people. It is not necessary to deter foreign invasion, nor is it necessary to engage in resistance to a hostile, oppressive government. This is all ignoring the fact that your nuclear weapon/grenade/tank argument is actually the fallacy of the slippery slope. historical freedoms and education which our citizens posses and wealth are the only things standing between you and totalitarianism. Guns play insignificant role compared to that. That argument is completely based on premises that ignore actual history. Oppressive governments are not separate from the population they govern, they always have high degree of support from local population and even higher degree of indifference from local population. Meaning that you cannot count on too much of a majority to support the uprising. That means if army is with the government, they are safe, if not they are doomed anyway, citizens guns being irrelevant. If government has little support from the populace it will fall anyway no matter what army decides to do and how armed is the populace. As for deterring foreign invasion, yes, 200 years ago, and even then not a big one. It is absolutely no deterrent for invasion today. The only arguments for gun rights that might turn out to be rational come from self-defense and other similar points. Guns do play a role, just as education, wealth, and tradition play roles. We can argue about how large a role they play, but at the end of the day, a government must necessarily be more wary of an armed populace than an unarmed one. Point to me the history that proves guns are irrelevant to the discussion. Oppressive governments do not always have majority support, in fact, they usually don't when they begin (revolution). Usually it is a violent minority that takes power and forces the semblance of majority support through re-education and persecution. The military being with the government is an important question, of course, but what of when the military splits? Or if the military largely stays with the government, does all resistance end? Should the resistance just lay down and die because the military is against them? Guns would then become all the more important in that scenario. Many governments have existed without true popular support. The ability of them to exist and remain existing is proportional to the inability of the populace to express, with force, their displeasure. It is absolutely a deterrent, though that is more irrelevant due to our position as the worlds only military super-power. 100 million armed citizens on top of the military would make an invasion almost impossible to effectively execute, and would make occupation a bitter fantasy. Self-defense is obviously the most relevant, but the other arguments, more original in nature, are still rational. The historical experience that I am talking about is that people revolt successfully guns or no guns. The only relevant factor always (in the long term) is how much support that particular revolt has among the population. That level of support is affected by tradition, education, wealth, stability, not by gun ownership. Having a gun does not make me more likely to sympathise with particular movement. I said "high degree of support", not majority. Minority is enough if it is big enough . Split army scenarios might be decided by armed populace. But only in like 1% (whatever is the actual number it is low) of possible splits. Is it worth it to accept all the bad things gun ownership brings for 1% chance of preventing something that will likely not even happen ? Basically it is non-factor in the calculation. Nobody actually would invade US to occupy it, again guns or no guns. It is too costly no matter what. They would invade to inflict damage. And for that armed citizenry , and I mean armed with what is legal and reasonable to own, is absolutely no deterrent. So first argument is non-argument because it solves low % of scenarios in a situation that is even more unlikely. Second argument does not apply due to realities of modern world. Only the last one remains. Armed resistance against a modern military is totally possible given small arms. Guerrilla warfare is a thing. Sure, no number of AR-15's is going to stop a tank, but plenty of other things easily acquired by civilians can. Fertilizer is extremely explosive, and enough of it can totally knock the tracks off a tank. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been disabling tanks all along with nothing but small arms and improvised weapons. And even so, tanks and jets and such aren't really very good for occupation anyways. Tanks can't kick down your door and search your house, and jets can't police the streets.
I am not talking about insurgents in foreign-occupied countries, so Iraq and Afghanistan have no relevance. I am talking about civil war/revolt in a country. In those scenarios you have big chunk of the population (as in possibly similar to those opposing) also having those guns and helping said government. Plus it is not really that hard to run armed revolution even if you start without guns at the beginning. You don't just go to the streets and start shooting, successful revolts require planning and that is when you can get/produce weapons and that is what many past revolts successfully did.
|
On April 19 2013 02:37 FrankWalls wrote:i'm baffled that people still think that dems and republicans are vastly different beside some few hot button issues. time and time again government does the same shit whether dem controlled or republican controlled Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:24 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 02:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nukes and slavery/secession kind of seem irrelevant to this discussion, tbh, don't know why everyone is talking about them rather than... guns. Well, probably because actual gun issues were talked over n times already. The whole gun issue will solve itself as all societal issues do. In time. With current trends (so barring major economical and social disaster) sooner or later gun ownership will drop until it becomes small minority issue and majority will then just easily do whatever they want to do about that whole issue. Probably something like most other wealthy countries. Except gun sales and ownership are up... and have been going up for some time... shh dont spoil his world where america will assimilate to his culture in time. it might spoil his dream!
It's not the Dems/Reps that are so different, it's the ideological groups they purport to represent that are gulfs apart.
|
On April 19 2013 02:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
So I guess the conclusion is
Owning guns = Owning nukes
Gun laws = Slavery
Am I following the last three pages right--I just want to be clear.
Pretty accurate. Amusing when I look back on it...good times ^_^
Edit: Shit, srry for the Double post
|
On April 19 2013 03:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:
But you haven't shown why those revolts succeed, you've only said why you think they succeed. And I don't disagree with the point that tradition, wealth, and popular support are important factors, possibly more important than gun ownership. However, I stand by the argument that high rates of gun ownership are a determining factor, especially if you consider the idea that a government would be more hesitant to engage in behaviors that would lead to the revolting of an armed populace without either minimizing the ability of the populace to use their guns or by taking the guns away entirely.
Why someone invades is irrelevant to the fact that invading a country with a heavily armed, hostile populace is always going to be more difficult than invading a country with a disarmed populace. And invasions cannot be executed without bases of operation within the territory being invaded, occupation is always a necessity in any kind of large-scale invasion, even if occupation is not the long-term goal. Occupying, even for a short-term, a heavily armed nation will necessarily be more difficult than a disarmed one. Just look at the most recent wars and military engagements that the United States has been involved in for evidence.
The arguments stand, even if they are not as relevant in the modern day as they were in the past. They do not suddenly become irrational now that they are less relevant. And as I said before, it is clear that self-defense and protection of property by the private citizen is far more relevant to the discussion. But don't discount the other arguments just because they are less relevant. They still are rational arguments, and they still are relevant to some degree, thought he degree to which they are relevant remains debatable.
I will answer both points with something you are missing. All revolutionaries are in the end armed if they do not succeed quickly. It is not hard to arm yourself enough to the level of what you can legally own in case of widespread popularity of your movement. And if your movement is not popular, you are just a terrorist anyway.
|
On April 19 2013 03:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:56 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:24 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 02:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nukes and slavery/secession kind of seem irrelevant to this discussion, tbh, don't know why everyone is talking about them rather than... guns. Well, probably because actual gun issues were talked over n times already. The whole gun issue will solve itself as all societal issues do. In time. With current trends (so barring major economical and social disaster) sooner or later gun ownership will drop until it becomes small minority issue and majority will then just easily do whatever they want to do about that whole issue. Probably something like most other wealthy countries. Except gun sales and ownership are up... and have been going up for some time... I read that actual number of gun owners is down, but frankly that just determines if what I am describing will come sooner or later. The attitude shifts come in packages, being anti-gun is part of the package that is becoming more prevalent in the long run. Gun ownership is up in the US. And frankly, there is absolutely no evidence that being anti-gun is becoming more popular in recent times. If you're arguing that traditionally leftist ideas are on the rise and generally are inevitable anyway, again, this is not exactly true. The radical shift you're discussing has been "just around the corner" for a very long time; in actuality it's more "no, not that corner, the next one. No not that one either, the next one!" There is more evidence to support a kind of cyclic movement of public political opinion than a true shift toward one side or the other. Even so, this argument is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of whether guns should be allowed or not. Boldly declaring that they won't be allowed in the near or far future anyway is not an argument, nor is it useful. It's just a prediction, perhaps based on some evidence, but ultimately baseless in any meaningful way. edit: Whether gun ownership is up or down is also a hot debate in of itself, some surveys saying yes, others saying no. And even further, it all depends upon what criteria one uses. Gun ownership has risen since 2010, but fallen since 1970.
I am talking real long term trends in terms of what I meant 1980-2013 is short term trend. Long term trends seem to be rather clear : evnvironmentalism, regulating economy as far as product quality goes, human rights movements (LGBT, ...), animal rights movements. All those are progressing, none are regressing. And with those comes anti-gun movement. They are linked, just statistically, but they are.
You are correct that it is not useful as far as deciding whether guns should be allowed or not. But that was my point. Hidden one, my point was that there is no useful point that can be brought up anymore. This is purely ideological debate at this point. Factual debate does not have enough data to conclusively support any useful conclusion.
EDIT: I meant to say that 1980-2013 is on the border of what I would consider long term trend, definitely not short term .
|
On April 19 2013 03:27 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 03:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:56 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:24 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 02:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +Nukes and slavery/secession kind of seem irrelevant to this discussion, tbh, don't know why everyone is talking about them rather than... guns. Well, probably because actual gun issues were talked over n times already. The whole gun issue will solve itself as all societal issues do. In time. With current trends (so barring major economical and social disaster) sooner or later gun ownership will drop until it becomes small minority issue and majority will then just easily do whatever they want to do about that whole issue. Probably something like most other wealthy countries. Except gun sales and ownership are up... and have been going up for some time... I read that actual number of gun owners is down, but frankly that just determines if what I am describing will come sooner or later. The attitude shifts come in packages, being anti-gun is part of the package that is becoming more prevalent in the long run. Gun ownership is up in the US. And frankly, there is absolutely no evidence that being anti-gun is becoming more popular in recent times. If you're arguing that traditionally leftist ideas are on the rise and generally are inevitable anyway, again, this is not exactly true. The radical shift you're discussing has been "just around the corner" for a very long time; in actuality it's more "no, not that corner, the next one. No not that one either, the next one!" There is more evidence to support a kind of cyclic movement of public political opinion than a true shift toward one side or the other. Even so, this argument is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of whether guns should be allowed or not. Boldly declaring that they won't be allowed in the near or far future anyway is not an argument, nor is it useful. It's just a prediction, perhaps based on some evidence, but ultimately baseless in any meaningful way. edit: Whether gun ownership is up or down is also a hot debate in of itself, some surveys saying yes, others saying no. And even further, it all depends upon what criteria one uses. Gun ownership has risen since 2010, but fallen since 1970. I am talking real long term trends in terms of what I meant 1980-2013 is short term trend. Long term trends seem to be rather clear : evnvironmentalism, regulating economy as far as product quality goes, human rights movements (LGBT, ...), animal rights movements. All those are progressing, none are regressing. And with those comes anti-gun movement. They are linked, just statistically, but they are. You are correct that it is not useful as far as deciding whether guns should be allowed or not. But that was my point. Hidden one, my point was that there is no useful point that can be brought up anymore. This is purely ideological debate at this point. Factual debate does not have enough data to conclusively support any useful conclusion. EDIT: I meant to say that 1980-2013 is on the border of what I would consider long term trend, definitely not short term .
I remember my undergrad where anything after the 1600's was just way too modern for my tastes and pretty much all looked and sounded the same. Three hundred years after my area of expertise was just too new for my liking lol.
|
On April 19 2013 02:59 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:37 FrankWalls wrote:i'm baffled that people still think that dems and republicans are vastly different beside some few hot button issues. time and time again government does the same shit whether dem controlled or republican controlled On April 19 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 02:24 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 02:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Nukes and slavery/secession kind of seem irrelevant to this discussion, tbh, don't know why everyone is talking about them rather than... guns. Well, probably because actual gun issues were talked over n times already. The whole gun issue will solve itself as all societal issues do. In time. With current trends (so barring major economical and social disaster) sooner or later gun ownership will drop until it becomes small minority issue and majority will then just easily do whatever they want to do about that whole issue. Probably something like most other wealthy countries. Except gun sales and ownership are up... and have been going up for some time... shh dont spoil his world where america will assimilate to his culture in time. it might spoil his dream! America is not some unique snowflake, don't kid yourself.
It really burns you to think of America's specialness, doesn't it?
|
United States24571 Posts
On April 19 2013 02:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
How is it irrational paranoia when one of our closest allies did exactly that? Maybe you are right and a similar ban won't happen for 100s of years, but we have no way of knowing. And yes, making a law that many people simply won't follow isn't something that should happen overnight without an extremely good reason... in fact if there was such a good reason you might be able to convince them over the course of a few months/years to agree with the proposed law. Alas, a gun registry is not so one-sided as you seem to think it is.
Using 'can benefit society' as sufficient justification for a new law is of course rather ridiculous and I hope you didn't mean it literally.
"Hey look, another country did it. We're in danger of it!" It's irrational, plain and simple. The U.K. runs under an entirely different set of laws. They don't have the second amendment, and if someone believes that, between the second amendment existing and the NRA/Republican party existing, we're going to magically ban gun possession, they are paranoid and delusional. In fact, countless Republicans have proven, time and time again, that they operate on nonsensical logical leaps, pseudo-science, or plain irrationality and stubbornness. It really isn't hard to see if you pay attention to politics in this country.
You have demonstrated why that event happening in another country does not necessarily mean it won't happen here. You have not made a strong case that it definitely won't happen here. Thus, people worry. In my state a new law was pushed through in a matter of hours which made it illegal to buy most types of guns sold. After weeks of pushback they finally made some revisions to make it less sweeping, but after seeing something like this happen I definitely believe it is possible for a federal-level bait and switch like the one that happened for all New Yorkers. The only difference which I must admit is that there was a grandfathering clause, but even that had severe limitations including inability to pass firearms on to family members upon death.
I'm not saying we should prepare for the inevitable, just that it's easy to assume there's no risk of civilian gun ownership legally going out the window within the next 20 years when such an eventuality would not affect your personal life.
And again, "A bunch of right-wing nutjobs won't follow this law) isn't a good excuse to just not try to do something positive. This country is a complete joke already. It's about time we stop letting nutjob conservatives hold us politically hostage. It would not just be nut-jobs.
You don't seem able to think about these issues objectively. Of course you have a reason to care deeply about the state of the country, but the way you say things about nutjobs, the country being a joke, and people holding each other politically hostage isn't accomplishing anything positive in this thread or elsewhere.
For the record I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who obviously shouldn't have them or aren't willing to take good care of them and be responsible.
|
And again, "A bunch of right-wing nutjobs won't follow this law) isn't a good excuse to just not try to do something positive. This country is a complete joke already. It's about time we stop letting nutjob conservatives hold us politically hostage.
Said the Weather Underground
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
