|
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 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.
You are truly ignorant if you believe tyranny 'like that' doesn't exist anymore.
The reason 'the West' (please define) isn't as oppressed by government is because a lot of people have died t o make it that way.
Why should they give up their tools that give them the ability to keep it that way?
Taxing 'too much' (again, define) is tyranny. I will break it down for you:
1) Someone that you did not personally agree (if you didn't vote for them) to have power over you (the Federal government) says that you owe them money.
2) You choose not to pay it.
3) A man with a gun(Police) shows up at your house, and either takes your property, or takes your freedom(prison), or takes your life if you try to fight.
|
On May 05 2013 02:53 LazyDT 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. You are truly ignorant if you believe tyranny 'like that' doesn't exist anymore. The reason 'the West' (please define) isn't as oppressed by government is because a lot of people have died t o make it that way. Why should they give up their tools that give them the ability to keep it that way? Taxing 'too much' (again, define) is tyranny. I will break it down for you: 1) Someone that you did not personally agree (if you didn't vote for them) to have power over you (the Federal government) says that you owe them money. 2) You choose not to pay it. 3) A man with a gun(Police) shows up at your house, and either takes your property, or takes your freedom(prison), or takes your life if you try to fight.
This is pretty disingenuous, don't you think? You're perfectly free to renounce your American citizenship and move to a different country if you don't wish to pay taxes to the American government. The fact that you occupy American land (eminent domain etc.) and operate within the American economy, use American services, and benefit from the protection of the American military/courts/government/constitution means that you are obligated to pay taxes.
How is this tyrannical? Nobody is forcing you to pay. They're forcing you to pay if you wish to continue to be an American resident/citizen/operate within the American economy because that's the law as agreed upon by the majority of people who operate within that jurisdiction. Where's the tyranny?
If you don't like the fact that you have to abide by laws passed by a Congress you didn't vote for, then your real problem is with the Constitution which allocates lawmaking power to that body. If you don't like this, either propose an amendment to your Constitution or start your own nation in which you're permitted to only pay for laws with which you agree. Don't expect many people to join you, though.
|
On May 05 2013 02:53 LazyDT 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. You are truly ignorant if you believe tyranny 'like that' doesn't exist anymore. The reason 'the West' (please define) isn't as oppressed by government is because a lot of people have died t o make it that way. Why should they give up their tools that give them the ability to keep it that way? Taxing 'too much' (again, define) is tyranny. I will break it down for you: 1) Someone that you did not personally agree (if you didn't vote for them) to have power over you (the Federal government) says that you owe them money. 2) You choose not to pay it. 3) A man with a gun(Police) shows up at your house, and either takes your property, or takes your freedom(prison), or takes your life if you try to fight.
So you need these "tools" to protect yourself from policemen, politicians, and paying taxes? Interesting... or should I say, highly disturbing...
|
On May 05 2013 02:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I would argue that anyone saying that tanks, airplanes, and bombs are necessary to carry out a successful resistance to a military in a revolution/civil war scenario don't have a great understanding of the realities of modern warfare.
That being said, I agree that it's not the biggest issue, nor the best argument.
|
On May 05 2013 02:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 02:49 FallDownMarigold wrote: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. I would argue that anyone saying that tanks, airplanes, and bombs are necessary to carry out a successful resistance to a military in a revolution/civil war scenario don't have a great understanding of the realities of modern warfare. That being said, I agree that it's not the biggest issue, nor the best argument.
Do you define a "successful resistance" as actually retaking control of the country, deposing the tyrant, and so on? If so, good luck doing that with nothing more than basic weaponry.
|
On May 05 2013 02:55 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 02:53 LazyDT 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. You are truly ignorant if you believe tyranny 'like that' doesn't exist anymore. The reason 'the West' (please define) isn't as oppressed by government is because a lot of people have died t o make it that way. Why should they give up their tools that give them the ability to keep it that way? Taxing 'too much' (again, define) is tyranny. I will break it down for you: 1) Someone that you did not personally agree (if you didn't vote for them) to have power over you (the Federal government) says that you owe them money. 2) You choose not to pay it. 3) A man with a gun(Police) shows up at your house, and either takes your property, or takes your freedom(prison), or takes your life if you try to fight. This is pretty disingenuous, don't you think? You're perfectly free to renounce your American citizenship and move to a different country if you don't wish to pay taxes to the American government. The fact that you occupy American land (eminent domain etc.) and operate within the American economy, use American services, and benefit from the protection of the American military/courts/government/constitution means that you are obligated to pay taxes. How is this tyrannical? Nobody is forcing you to pay. They're forcing you to pay if you wish to continue to be an American resident/citizen/operate within the American economy because that's the law as agreed upon by the majority of people who operate within that jurisdiction. Where's the tyranny?
Read his sig Shiori. Logic means nothing in the face of Ron Paul's populist politics. They are the sort that thinks that everyone who is poor or in a state of misfortune deserves it; the notion of opportunity or the bonds of society are utterly unimportant to them.
Prepare for some sort of literalist reference to the Constitution and how, since it doesn't make explicit reference to the tax structure present today, the federal government is a cult of altruistic wealth distribution that seeks to turn us into the Soviet Union.
|
On May 05 2013 03:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 02:55 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2013 02:53 LazyDT 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. You are truly ignorant if you believe tyranny 'like that' doesn't exist anymore. The reason 'the West' (please define) isn't as oppressed by government is because a lot of people have died t o make it that way. Why should they give up their tools that give them the ability to keep it that way? Taxing 'too much' (again, define) is tyranny. I will break it down for you: 1) Someone that you did not personally agree (if you didn't vote for them) to have power over you (the Federal government) says that you owe them money. 2) You choose not to pay it. 3) A man with a gun(Police) shows up at your house, and either takes your property, or takes your freedom(prison), or takes your life if you try to fight. This is pretty disingenuous, don't you think? You're perfectly free to renounce your American citizenship and move to a different country if you don't wish to pay taxes to the American government. The fact that you occupy American land (eminent domain etc.) and operate within the American economy, use American services, and benefit from the protection of the American military/courts/government/constitution means that you are obligated to pay taxes. How is this tyrannical? Nobody is forcing you to pay. They're forcing you to pay if you wish to continue to be an American resident/citizen/operate within the American economy because that's the law as agreed upon by the majority of people who operate within that jurisdiction. Where's the tyranny? Read his sig Shiori. Logic means nothing in the face of Ron Paul's populist politics. They are the sort that thinks that everyone who is poor or in a state of misfortune deserves it; the notion of opportunity or the bonds of society are utterly unimportant to them. Prepare for some sort of literalist reference to the Constitution and how, since it doesn't make explicit reference to the tax structure present today, the federal government is a cult of altruistic wealth distribution that seeks to turn us into the Soviet Union.
...Oh. Well, that's disappointing. I've never really understood the Ron Paul craze to be honest!
|
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
|
On May 05 2013 02:59 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 02:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 05 2013 02:49 FallDownMarigold wrote: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. I would argue that anyone saying that tanks, airplanes, and bombs are necessary to carry out a successful resistance to a military in a revolution/civil war scenario don't have a great understanding of the realities of modern warfare. That being said, I agree that it's not the biggest issue, nor the best argument. Do you define a "successful resistance" as actually retaking control of the country, deposing the tyrant, and so on? If so, good luck doing that with nothing more than basic weaponry.
Making it near impossible for a tyrant to rule will lead to the eventual overthrow of his rule. Basic weaponry is all you would need to make it near impossible for him/her to rule effectively.
|
United States24673 Posts
On May 05 2013 02:48 Xialos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 02:21 micronesia 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) 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. Don't you think it's problematic to draw the conclusion that something like a totalitarian state cannot emerge? How can you honestly think that our societal advancements fully protect us from such possibilities? Things are definitely better (in this regard) than they used to be, but don't let it lull you into some false sense of security.
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. You just described some things our 'western' societies do in order to avoid tyranny. As I said, there are things we can do to prevent it. None of these things are irreversible though, and to assume otherwise is just asking for us to regress.
The old american ideology is 100% outdated I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not but at no point was I talking specifically about the USA or an american ideology.
but the world has changed and you have to consider it. Improvement does not mean we can't go down the same roads we have many times before. It's precisely thinking we can't which makes it more likely to happen.
Of course I hope you are right but I think it's a naive view.
|
On May 05 2013 02:53 LazyDT 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. You are truly ignorant if you believe tyranny 'like that' doesn't exist anymore. The reason 'the West' (please define) isn't as oppressed by government is because a lot of people have died t o make it that way. Why should they give up their tools that give them the ability to keep it that way? Taxing 'too much' (again, define) is tyranny. I will break it down for you: 1) Someone that you did not personally agree (if you didn't vote for them) to have power over you (the Federal government) says that you owe them money. 2) You choose not to pay it. 3) A man with a gun(Police) shows up at your house, and either takes your property, or takes your freedom(prison), or takes your life if you try to fight.
You don't know what you're talking about lol. I won't bother defining what a tyranny is, just open a dictionary.. But your government should not be what YOU want it to be, it is what the majority want it to be (that's the point of a democracy ^^). Moreover, if you dont agree with this government you're free to leave the country. The US (i'll talk about the US because it seems like that's the issue here) is a legitimate gouvernement, with legitimate laws, considering that, you MUST follow the rules even though you disagree with them. It's not about YOU as a person, but about the society as a whole.
|
If car driver goes mad and starts killing pedestrians - then we should ban cars?
Should people be allowed to own and drive Cars?
And one important thing: bad people does not have problems with acquiring any type of weapons. Having gun is prevention - look on Switzerland - having a rifle is compulsory for each adult man being a Citizen of this country - and almost no one died from firearm by last 10 years..
|
On May 05 2013 03:05 thetaoptimus wrote:
If car driver goes mad and starts killing pedestrians - then we should ban cars?
Should people be allowed to own and drive Cars?
If a user of poor analogies goes mad and starts killing good sense with them - then we should ban poor analogies?
Should people be allowed to make poor analogies?
Edit: Just so we're clear, getting gun rights advocates to admit that guns are anything like cars is actually a huge win for the gun control camp, in that cars are well regulated.
|
United States24673 Posts
On May 05 2013 03:05 thetaoptimus wrote:
If car driver goes mad and starts killing pedestrians - then we should ban cars?
Should people be allowed to own and drive Cars?
If there was a news item today that one guy intentionally drove his car into a crowd and killed 10 people, it would be tragic but it would not change laws. If it started happening on a daily basis, it would draw more attention, and eventually there would be changes to made to laws, licensing, road design, etc. Using an absolute viewpoint in either direction isn't best for society.
|
On May 05 2013 03:05 thetaoptimus wrote:
If car driver goes mad and starts killing pedestrians - then we should ban cars?
Should people be allowed to own and drive Cars?
No. But we would regulate them heavily where they are in contact with others in public spaces.
A great success of the 20th century — the reduction in motor vehicle deaths3 — helps illustrate the public health approach. Almost all motor vehicle crashes and deaths can be ascribed to driver error or deliberate misbehavior (e.g., speeding and running red lights). Drivers, especially when tired, drunk, or angry, sometimes make mistakes or behave inappropriately. At first blush, it would appear that if drivers are at fault for almost all collisions, the focus of prevention should be on drivers. Indeed, in the 1950s, the safety focus was on driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. At the same time, public health physicians began asking a different question — not “Who caused the accident?” but “What caused the injury?”4 They found that drivers' vital organs were ruptured when the spearlike steering column punctured the chest; faces and major arteries were ripped apart by windshield glass; occupants were thrown from the car; and many motorists died when their car left the road and hit the unyielding signs, lights, and trees that lined highways. These physicians asked, Why can't cars have collapsible, energy-absorbing steering columns, safety glass, seat belts, and air bags? Why can't we make the roads safer? After all, we were not placing unyielding impediments along the sides of airport runways.
Over the past 60 years, cars and roads have become much safer, and the emergency medical system has improved. Traffic-safety experts do not think that drivers today are much better than they were in the 1950s (although alcohol use while driving is down, cell-phone use, texting, and road rage are all up), but fatalities per mile driven have fallen by more than 80%.5 The modern traffic-safety approach does not neglect the driver, but it also emphasizes the importance of upstream prevention.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631
|
On May 05 2013 03:05 thetaoptimus wrote:
If car driver goes mad and starts killing pedestrians - then we should ban cars?
Should people be allowed to own and drive Cars?
Lol what kind of analogy is that? I dont think cars and weapons have the same purpose. Just saying.
|
On May 05 2013 03:05 thetaoptimus wrote:
If car driver goes mad and starts killing pedestrians - then we should ban cars?
Should people be allowed to own and drive Cars?
And one important thing: bad people does not have problems with acquiring any type of weapons. Having gun is prevention - look on Switzerland - having a rifle is compulsory for each adult man being a Citizen of this country - and almost no one died from firearm by last 10 years..
A cyclist died on a roundabout and it was just an accident.
Many cyclists have now died on roundabouts and it is now a problem. Cities are starting to look at new roundabout designs that will prevent cyclists from dying.
|
Point is that - that criminals still will kill people. All people should have a chance to get a license for having a guns. And buying any type of gun they want. Like for license - people should be examined by a doctor.
|
No one argues that more responsible regulation will outright eliminate all instances of firearm misuse -- whether criminal homicide, accidental injury, suicide, or whatever else.
|
United States24673 Posts
On May 05 2013 03:23 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one argues that more responsible regulation will outright eliminate all instances of firearm misuse -- whether criminal homicide, accidental injury, suicide, or whatever else.
Yes it will take many years to bring those down to negligible levels in the USA almost no matter what laws are implemented. In some cases they may temporarily get worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
