|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 05 2013 01:34 Sermokala wrote:
So you're going to try and paint someone as trying to feel superior to you after you thumbed your nose down at them because of their culture?
And you call us ignorant.
Loaded firearms in a childs room has nothing to do with "culture" and everything to do with sheer stupidity. I grew up in the deep south and my entire family has always had guns and tought their children gun safety. I am a gun owner myself.
|
On May 05 2013 01:11 SwatRaven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 00:08 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 05 2013 00:05 Chaloo wrote:On May 04 2013 23:53 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Is there something morally objectionable to a child owning a gun? Or rather, are there any implicit harms that result from a child owning a gun? so no age limits at all? A gun in the hand of a four year old child, you can think of nothing that could go wrong? I understand that, but that's not my question. I agree that a gun in the hands of a child is an awful idea, but what I'm wondering is if there's anything morally objectionable to having a child owning a gun. Does a child's possession of a gun result in any implicit harms? In other words, will a child holding a gun result in an accident? My gut tells me that accidents will happen and as a result children should not own a gun, but there are many who believe that my gut feelings are not enough to legislate something based on fears that something bad may happen. That is a very interesting question and I am glad that you brought it up, personally I believe there is nothing inherently wrong with letting a child operate or own a gun under supervised conditions; in the short term there certainly is a risk of an accident occurring, in the long run there may be some benefits of it to society, mainly that of a more knowledgeable population. If the risk of accident is too high with children (not sure where to find an empirical study for it) I believe it would be understandable to have the legislation reflect that just as with other risk reducing legislation (i.e. driver's licenses) . I am still thinking about the moral issue myself, what do you believe?
I'm not sure sometimes. It baffles me, really. On one hand, I think there's merit in saying that one has the absolute right to property, that government shouldn't intrude on private lives or private transactions, so long as property is not taken by force or violence. By that extension government has no right legislating who has the right to own anything really, firearms or otherwise.
On the other hand, I have concerns about how practical that is. Obviously there have been many cases where irresponsible parents can't even keep track of their own children, but often times the bright lines aren't that clear. I'm of the type to say that we should try to avoid accidents whenever possible, and as of now I stand on the side that says that certain government regulations are worth it if we can minimize the risk and frequency of accidents or deaths.
|
On May 05 2013 01:36 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 01:34 Sermokala wrote:On May 05 2013 01:21 Paljas wrote:On May 05 2013 01:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:05 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 01:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:01 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 00:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Because the government doesn't need to be telling me how to raise my children. Children raised with guns are often times the most responsible gun-owners when they grow up. My cousins have owned guns since they were knee-high (loaded weapons in their rooms) and they are two of the most responsible people with guns I have ever met. Better question would be: why should it not be legal for children to own guns? Damn, you make responsible gun owners look terrible. Never speak about guns again please. Does not compute. No surprises here. I'd just like to know where the disgust and contempt in your post comes from. Millions of people in this country have been raised with guns and have had guns in their hands from the time they were 6 or 7. I think 5 is a good age to be introduced to guns but not to be holding them or firing them. Still, these types of accidents are very rare. So I wonder if your point is not to make a real point. But rather to make a social point. To signal your superiority to others by having the appropriate reaction (disgust, contempt, control fantasies) where the appropriate people can see it so you will be marked as one of the appropriate people. superfan101 said that his cousins have had loaded weapons in their rooms when they were knee-high. Obviously, this is making gun owners look terrible. How does it make us look terrible? For us it creates a culture of saftey and security around our kids with guns. Its a lot better then stashing it under you pillow for your kids to find, like how most kids kill themselves with their parents guns. Growing our children up with guns is the responsible thing to do in america. Loaded firearms in a "knee high" child's room is in no way responsible.
How so?
|
On May 05 2013 01:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 01:36 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 01:34 Sermokala wrote:On May 05 2013 01:21 Paljas wrote:On May 05 2013 01:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:05 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 01:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:01 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 00:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Because the government doesn't need to be telling me how to raise my children. Children raised with guns are often times the most responsible gun-owners when they grow up. My cousins have owned guns since they were knee-high (loaded weapons in their rooms) and they are two of the most responsible people with guns I have ever met. Better question would be: why should it not be legal for children to own guns? Damn, you make responsible gun owners look terrible. Never speak about guns again please. Does not compute. No surprises here. I'd just like to know where the disgust and contempt in your post comes from. Millions of people in this country have been raised with guns and have had guns in their hands from the time they were 6 or 7. I think 5 is a good age to be introduced to guns but not to be holding them or firing them. Still, these types of accidents are very rare. So I wonder if your point is not to make a real point. But rather to make a social point. To signal your superiority to others by having the appropriate reaction (disgust, contempt, control fantasies) where the appropriate people can see it so you will be marked as one of the appropriate people. superfan101 said that his cousins have had loaded weapons in their rooms when they were knee-high. Obviously, this is making gun owners look terrible. How does it make us look terrible? For us it creates a culture of saftey and security around our kids with guns. Its a lot better then stashing it under you pillow for your kids to find, like how most kids kill themselves with their parents guns. Growing our children up with guns is the responsible thing to do in america. Loaded firearms in a "knee high" child's room is in no way responsible. How so?
nice joke lol
|
On May 05 2013 01:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 01:36 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 01:34 Sermokala wrote:On May 05 2013 01:21 Paljas wrote:On May 05 2013 01:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:05 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 01:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:01 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 00:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Because the government doesn't need to be telling me how to raise my children. Children raised with guns are often times the most responsible gun-owners when they grow up. My cousins have owned guns since they were knee-high (loaded weapons in their rooms) and they are two of the most responsible people with guns I have ever met. Better question would be: why should it not be legal for children to own guns? Damn, you make responsible gun owners look terrible. Never speak about guns again please. Does not compute. No surprises here. I'd just like to know where the disgust and contempt in your post comes from. Millions of people in this country have been raised with guns and have had guns in their hands from the time they were 6 or 7. I think 5 is a good age to be introduced to guns but not to be holding them or firing them. Still, these types of accidents are very rare. So I wonder if your point is not to make a real point. But rather to make a social point. To signal your superiority to others by having the appropriate reaction (disgust, contempt, control fantasies) where the appropriate people can see it so you will be marked as one of the appropriate people. superfan101 said that his cousins have had loaded weapons in their rooms when they were knee-high. Obviously, this is making gun owners look terrible. How does it make us look terrible? For us it creates a culture of saftey and security around our kids with guns. Its a lot better then stashing it under you pillow for your kids to find, like how most kids kill themselves with their parents guns. Growing our children up with guns is the responsible thing to do in america. Loaded firearms in a "knee high" child's room is in no way responsible. How so?
Are you saying you have a loaded firearm in a room when the child is alone? Because there are many reasons why that's not responsible, just like how it'd be dangerous to keep sharp objects, large wads of gum, pellets or large pieces of hard candy that can be choked on, or open bottles of pills and medication around a young child.
On May 05 2013 02:04 BillGates wrote:
Of course, because in history tyrants have always wanted to disarm the people so they can get away with whatever tyranny they want to establish. An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry and a rock solid protection against tyranny in government.
Its the first line of defense against common criminals and the last line of defense against a tyrannical government that tries to take people's rights and taxes them too much.
You make it sound like an armed citizenry would actually stand a chance against an organized government military.
|
Of course, because in history tyrants have always wanted to disarm the people so they can get away with whatever tyranny they want to establish. An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry and a rock solid protection against tyranny in government.
Its the first line of defense against common criminals and the last line of defense against a tyrannical government that tries to take people's rights and taxes them too much.
|
On May 05 2013 02:04 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 01:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 05 2013 01:36 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 01:34 Sermokala wrote:On May 05 2013 01:21 Paljas wrote:On May 05 2013 01:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:05 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 01:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:01 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 00:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Because the government doesn't need to be telling me how to raise my children.
Children raised with guns are often times the most responsible gun-owners when they grow up. My cousins have owned guns since they were knee-high (loaded weapons in their rooms) and they are two of the most responsible people with guns I have ever met.
Better question would be: why should it not be legal for children to own guns? Damn, you make responsible gun owners look terrible. Never speak about guns again please. Does not compute. No surprises here. I'd just like to know where the disgust and contempt in your post comes from. Millions of people in this country have been raised with guns and have had guns in their hands from the time they were 6 or 7. I think 5 is a good age to be introduced to guns but not to be holding them or firing them. Still, these types of accidents are very rare. So I wonder if your point is not to make a real point. But rather to make a social point. To signal your superiority to others by having the appropriate reaction (disgust, contempt, control fantasies) where the appropriate people can see it so you will be marked as one of the appropriate people. superfan101 said that his cousins have had loaded weapons in their rooms when they were knee-high. Obviously, this is making gun owners look terrible. How does it make us look terrible? For us it creates a culture of saftey and security around our kids with guns. Its a lot better then stashing it under you pillow for your kids to find, like how most kids kill themselves with their parents guns. Growing our children up with guns is the responsible thing to do in america. Loaded firearms in a "knee high" child's room is in no way responsible. How so? Are you saying you have a loaded firearm in a room when the child is alone? Because there are many reasons why that's not responsible, just like how it'd be dangerous to keep sharp objects, large wads of gum, pellets or large pieces of hard candy that can be choked on, or open bottles of pills and medication around a young child.
Okay, I thought it would be clear that "knee-high" was hyperbole...
There is nothing dangerous about leaving large pieces of hard candy where a seven year old can reach them. Likewise, with proper training, there is nothing dangerous about leaving a shotgun in a seven year old's room.
|
On May 05 2013 02:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 02:04 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 05 2013 01:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 05 2013 01:36 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 01:34 Sermokala wrote:On May 05 2013 01:21 Paljas wrote:On May 05 2013 01:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:05 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 01:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:01 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
Damn, you make responsible gun owners look terrible. Never speak about guns again please. Does not compute. No surprises here. I'd just like to know where the disgust and contempt in your post comes from. Millions of people in this country have been raised with guns and have had guns in their hands from the time they were 6 or 7. I think 5 is a good age to be introduced to guns but not to be holding them or firing them. Still, these types of accidents are very rare. So I wonder if your point is not to make a real point. But rather to make a social point. To signal your superiority to others by having the appropriate reaction (disgust, contempt, control fantasies) where the appropriate people can see it so you will be marked as one of the appropriate people. superfan101 said that his cousins have had loaded weapons in their rooms when they were knee-high. Obviously, this is making gun owners look terrible. How does it make us look terrible? For us it creates a culture of saftey and security around our kids with guns. Its a lot better then stashing it under you pillow for your kids to find, like how most kids kill themselves with their parents guns. Growing our children up with guns is the responsible thing to do in america. Loaded firearms in a "knee high" child's room is in no way responsible. How so? Are you saying you have a loaded firearm in a room when the child is alone? Because there are many reasons why that's not responsible, just like how it'd be dangerous to keep sharp objects, large wads of gum, pellets or large pieces of hard candy that can be choked on, or open bottles of pills and medication around a young child. Okay, I thought it would be clear that "knee-high" was hyperbole... There is nothing dangerous about leaving large pieces of hard candy where a seven year old can reach them. Likewise, with proper training, there is nothing dangerous about leaving a shotgun in a seven year old's room.
It's not clear when you're drawing a rather specific example from your personal experience.
|
On May 05 2013 02:04 BillGates wrote:
Of course, because in history tyrants have always wanted to disarm the people so they can get away with whatever tyranny they want to establish. An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry and a rock solid protection against tyranny in government.
Its the first line of defense against common criminals and the last line of defense against a tyrannical government that tries to take people's rights and taxes them too much.
Rofl you talk like we were living 200 years ago. We are in 2013, the tyranny you're talking about does not exist nowdays. (at least in the West). and you're funny if you think taxing too much is a form of tyranny lol.
|
On May 05 2013 02:12 Xialos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 02:04 BillGates wrote:
Of course, because in history tyrants have always wanted to disarm the people so they can get away with whatever tyranny they want to establish. An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry and a rock solid protection against tyranny in government.
Its the first line of defense against common criminals and the last line of defense against a tyrannical government that tries to take people's rights and taxes them too much. Rofl you talk like we were living 200 years ago. We are in 2013, the tyranny you're talking about does not exist nowdays. (at least in the West). and you're funny if you think taxing too much is a form of tyranny lol.
I wouldn't say that. There are quite a lot of people who find taxes to be a form of coercion from the state, that the state threatens death or compliance for not paying one's taxes, a lot of which go to services that one does not want or will not use.
|
On May 05 2013 02:15 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 02:12 Xialos wrote:On May 05 2013 02:04 BillGates wrote:
Of course, because in history tyrants have always wanted to disarm the people so they can get away with whatever tyranny they want to establish. An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry and a rock solid protection against tyranny in government.
Its the first line of defense against common criminals and the last line of defense against a tyrannical government that tries to take people's rights and taxes them too much. Rofl you talk like we were living 200 years ago. We are in 2013, the tyranny you're talking about does not exist nowdays. (at least in the West). and you're funny if you think taxing too much is a form of tyranny lol. I wouldn't say that. There are quite a lot of people who find taxes to be a form of coercion from the state, that the state threatens death or compliance for not paying one's taxes, a lot of which go to services that one does not want or will not use.
There are lots of people who think evolution is false. While thinking taxation is tyranny is less ridiculous than that, I only wish to point out that the popularity of a position has nothing to do with whether it's worthy of respect.
|
United States24701 Posts
On May 05 2013 02:12 Xialos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 02:04 BillGates wrote:
Of course, because in history tyrants have always wanted to disarm the people so they can get away with whatever tyranny they want to establish. An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry and a rock solid protection against tyranny in government.
Its the first line of defense against common criminals and the last line of defense against a tyrannical government that tries to take people's rights and taxes them too much. Rofl you talk like we were living 200 years ago. We are in 2013, the tyranny you're talking about does not exist nowdays. (at least in the West) I bet there are many times in history shortly before obvious tyranny where people were saying how nice it is not to have to worry about Tyranny anymore. I think Tyranny can only be avoided when you take action to prevent it rather than assume we have outgrown it.
Those of us living since the 80s, 90s, 2000s, etc, might feel lulled into a false sense of security that we came along late enough to miss the problems that plagued mankind for thousands of years, but society is not exempt from any of these threats now or in the future.
|
On May 05 2013 02:17 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 02:15 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 05 2013 02:12 Xialos wrote:On May 05 2013 02:04 BillGates wrote:
Of course, because in history tyrants have always wanted to disarm the people so they can get away with whatever tyranny they want to establish. An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry and a rock solid protection against tyranny in government.
Its the first line of defense against common criminals and the last line of defense against a tyrannical government that tries to take people's rights and taxes them too much. Rofl you talk like we were living 200 years ago. We are in 2013, the tyranny you're talking about does not exist nowdays. (at least in the West). and you're funny if you think taxing too much is a form of tyranny lol. I wouldn't say that. There are quite a lot of people who find taxes to be a form of coercion from the state, that the state threatens death or compliance for not paying one's taxes, a lot of which go to services that one does not want or will not use. There are lots of people who think evolution is false. While thinking taxation is tyranny is less ridiculous than that, I only wish to point out that the popularity of a position has nothing to do with whether it's worthy of respect.
I think it's an interesting point nonetheless, that people are so entrenched in their right to property and individual liberty that they cannot think of any other alternatives or sacrificing said liberties for the sake of some greater good or goal (not to mention the statistics for gun control and less gun violence has been studied and has produced mix results for both sides of the debate). I think understanding that point is a step towards understanding why there are some people who are so adamantly against even the most basic resolutions to gun control legislation and trying to find an area of compromise.
If one even exists for people like them.
|
On May 05 2013 02:15 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 02:12 Xialos wrote:On May 05 2013 02:04 BillGates wrote:
Of course, because in history tyrants have always wanted to disarm the people so they can get away with whatever tyranny they want to establish. An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry and a rock solid protection against tyranny in government.
Its the first line of defense against common criminals and the last line of defense against a tyrannical government that tries to take people's rights and taxes them too much. Rofl you talk like we were living 200 years ago. We are in 2013, the tyranny you're talking about does not exist nowdays. (at least in the West). and you're funny if you think taxing too much is a form of tyranny lol. I wouldn't say that. There are quite a lot of people who find taxes to be a form of coercion from the state, that the state threatens death or compliance for not paying one's taxes, a lot of which go to services that one does not want or will not use.
You're right, but it has nothing to do with tyranny, the taxation has been established through a democratic process. Which make it legitimate. Of course people can disagree concerning the use of the taxes, but that's subjective most of the time. You can't associate that to a form of tyranny or even authoritarian, since the regime is democratic.
|
On May 05 2013 02:23 Xialos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 02:15 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 05 2013 02:12 Xialos wrote:On May 05 2013 02:04 BillGates wrote:
Of course, because in history tyrants have always wanted to disarm the people so they can get away with whatever tyranny they want to establish. An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry and a rock solid protection against tyranny in government.
Its the first line of defense against common criminals and the last line of defense against a tyrannical government that tries to take people's rights and taxes them too much. Rofl you talk like we were living 200 years ago. We are in 2013, the tyranny you're talking about does not exist nowdays. (at least in the West). and you're funny if you think taxing too much is a form of tyranny lol. I wouldn't say that. There are quite a lot of people who find taxes to be a form of coercion from the state, that the state threatens death or compliance for not paying one's taxes, a lot of which go to services that one does not want or will not use. You're right, but it has nothing to do with tyranny, the taxation has been established through a democratic process. Which make it legitimate. Of course people can disagree concerning the use of the taxes, but that's subjective most of the time. You can't associate that to a form of tyranny or even authoritarian, since the regime is democratic.
Perhaps, but a democratic process does not mean unanimous consent. It's the idea that people have the right to refuse to pay to the state for services that they do not want without having to fear the use of force being brought upon them. I think my understanding of why state taxes are coercion are a bit muddy, and I'll admit to it being because I think the idea is bogus.
Anyway, this is a bad tangent so I'll just bring it back to gun control. To respond to the original poster, I think the practical application of guns as a defense against tyranny has fallen out of favor. Unless civilians were granted the use of higher efficiency weapons, tanks, airplanes, etc, there's really nothing a civilian militia can do about government tyranny if it really wanted to...at least as far as guns are concerned.
|
The best defense against tyranny will always be a sensible, balanced, and transparent governmental system. This is why most Western nations draft constitutions, bills of rights, and have courts with real power; it's very difficult for a tyrant to just rise up and declare himself king when there are so many checks and balances in place to prevent consolidation of power in one person. I'm not saying that it's impossible for a tyrant to gain power, but it's definitely not something I worry about on a day to day basis, and I think that if we were worried about tyrants, we'd be focusing on preventing them from rising by making it impossible to consolidate power in any one individual or group rather than by arming ourselves to the teeth in the unrealistic hope that the citizenry would have any real chance of beating an organized army.
Let's be honest: if the US army was suddenly controlled by a tyrant, it wouldn't make a bit of difference whether the populace was armed or not. The populace would never be able to actually win. The only thing that would change would be the number of civilian casualties once the big guns get brought into play. You're never going to be able to actually defeat the organized power of the US military; at best you'll slow it down and maybe wound it a little. I mean, we can theorycraft about the effectiveness of guerilla warfare, but at the end of the day the guerillas are usually highlighted as doing large amounts of damage relative to their firepower, not as a serious force that could actually retake a country against an extremely sophisticated and experienced military.
I mean, I suppose arming the populace would achieve the aim of making it very difficult for a tyrant to control a nation, but I don't see it having much of an effect on the ability of said tyrant to maintain power i.e. it's not like you could really depose him. You'd just have a messy civil war on your hands that nobody would really win. I don't really see how this is preferable in practical terms to nonviolent resistance. Both of them result in widespread societal dysfunction. Neither has any particular likelihood of straight-up beating the strongest military power in the world.
|
On May 05 2013 02:37 Shiori wrote:
The best defense against tyranny will always be a sensible, balanced, and transparent governmental system. This is why most Western nations draft constitutions, bills of rights, and have courts with real power; it's very difficult for a tyrant to just rise up and declare himself king when there are so many checks and balances in place to prevent consolidation of power in one person. I'm not saying that it's impossible for a tyrant to gain power, but it's definitely not something I worry about on a day to day basis, and I think that if we were worried about tyrants, we'd be focusing on preventing them from rising by making it impossible to consolidate power in any one individual or group rather than by arming ourselves to the teeth in the unrealistic hope that the citizenry would have any real chance of beating an organized army.
Let's be honest: if the US army was suddenly controlled by a tyrant, it wouldn't make a bit of difference whether the populace was armed or not. The populace would never be able to actually win. The only thing that would change would be the number of civilian casualties once the big guns get brought into play. You're never going to be able to actually defeat the organized power of the US military; at best you'll slow it down and maybe wound it a little.
Yeah...this is basically my opinion on the matter.
|
On May 05 2013 02:21 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 02:12 Xialos wrote:On May 05 2013 02:04 BillGates wrote:
Of course, because in history tyrants have always wanted to disarm the people so they can get away with whatever tyranny they want to establish. An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry and a rock solid protection against tyranny in government.
Its the first line of defense against common criminals and the last line of defense against a tyrannical government that tries to take people's rights and taxes them too much. Rofl you talk like we were living 200 years ago. We are in 2013, the tyranny you're talking about does not exist nowdays. (at least in the West) I bet there are many times in history shortly before obvious tyranny where people were saying how nice it is not to have to worry about Tyranny anymore. I think Tyranny can only be avoided when you take action to prevent it rather than assume we have outgrown it. Those of us living since the 80s, 90s, 2000s, etc, might feel lulled into a false sense of security that we came along late enough to miss the problems that plagued mankind for thousands of years, but society is not exempt from any of these threats now or in the future.
So, you say : «I think Tyranny can only be avoided when you take action to prevent it rather than assume we have outgrown it.»
That's where I think you're wrong, I study international relations, and I can tell you that considering the way the world is evolving, there's no way a form of totalitarian state could emerge in the west. Combined to liberalization, the judicialization makes societies sheltered from tyranny, in this perspective, the citizens do not have to take actions to avoid anything. That's why im saying we are in 2013, our political systems are totally safe.The old american ideology is 100% outdated, I understand the cultural aspect, but the world has changed and you have to consider it.
|
On May 05 2013 02:27 Zergneedsfood wrote:
To respond to the original poster, I think the practical application of guns as a defense against tyranny has fallen out of favor. Unless civilians were granted the use of higher efficiency weapons, tanks, airplanes, etc, there's really nothing a civilian militia can do about government tyranny if it really wanted to...at least as far as guns are concerned.
Absolutely correct. Antonin Scalia talks at length about this non-issue. Anyone still harping on about the need for guns to repel tyranny at home is confused and distracts attention from the worthy topics of the debate.
|
What kind of "tyranny from the government" do people seriously expect? It's not like one day you'll look out of your window and you will see a tank with government officials in your lawn trying to conquer your property, lol. Because if you think that will happen then you are probably crazy and if you think that some guns and ammo will help you defend against that you're delusional.
If there's any kind of serious threat from governments in the western world, it would be probably through our information systems, media, intelligence agencies and whatnot. But it's very unlikely that the Governments are going to harm you in a way where a gun would be helpful to defend yourself.
If you want to stand up for something that will ensure your liberty and safety then you should probably aim for freedom of speech, education, independent media uncontrolled exchange of information and not some frickin' gun rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
