|
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 March 01 2012 22:57 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 22:41 mcc wrote:
Actually people can easily take away things from you, no government necessary for that. If 90% of the society decides to take away your guns, they will do it and no government and no "rights" will protect you. You have extremely simple and naive view of the actual relationship between individual, society and government.
As for your argument about people being born with rights. Can you show me on an infant where can I locate those rights when he is born ? If you cannot, they are societal or mental construct as they do not have physical existence. And since "rights" is part of ethics/morality and that governs interactions within a society it is not individual mental construct, but societal one.
This is a clear expression of the validity of the tyranny of the majority. Just because 90% society decides to enslave the other 10% does it make it right? And what if the 10% couldn't defend themselves against such popular transgressions of their persons with weapons like guns? The one big disconnect that seems to be underneath the argument is the premise that societal decisions drives government policy, as if government was the perfect expression of public choice. Democratic government generally carries out its own separate agenda while loudly advertising itself as acting in the public good or acting in accordance to public choice.
I am not expressing that it is the right thing, I was just reacting to him saying that noone other than government can take things away from him. Which is of course incorrect as societal rules were enforced long time before any governments came to be. If it is right is another issue altogether, sometimes it is sometimes it is not. And 10% armed people are still going to be forced to do whatever the 90% of the also armed people want.
Of course there are differences between society's wishes and government actions. Sometimes it is so by design to actually prevent tyranny of majority and similar checks and balances. Of course they fail in face of determined enough majority. Sometimes the disparity is bad and reflects corruption and other negative things. But there is still some correlation between those two and in the end society is the main decider (see all the popular revolutions in history).
|
On March 01 2012 23:05 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 23:03 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 22:16 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 22:11 Rassy wrote:
On a slightly related note:
Should North Korea and Iran be allowed to develop and own nuclear weapons?
When you get at a state level a gun clearly is not enough for ones self defence and stronger deterents are needed.
Iraq had tons of guns still they got overrun by the usa and its alies.
Following the same arguments people have used to defend the right to own guns, one could argue that north korea and iran have the right to develop and own nuclear weapons.
Yet the majority of people in favor of the right to own guns come from a country wich will go to war to prevent this.
Am kinda curious to know how theythink about this.
Because Korea and Iran are bad kids. They never obey to the teacher. On a side note if they were to launch a nuclear bomb it would be on Israel or the US. How is Iran a bad kid compared to Israel or US ? Because they decided not to bow to your will ? It was ironic mate
Ah you are from UK, it starts with U so I thought you were from US. In that case my bad for not getting the irony.
EDIT:just so people do not jump to conclusion, above is also mainly irony 
|
On March 01 2012 23:15 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 23:11 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 22:59 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis. in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering. also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for. Your claims that we do not know our history are completely wrong and projection of your own issues. That you do not know European history does not mean we do not know yours. How your country was founded 300 years ago is no reason not to base national decisions on reason instead of tradition. All of Europeans nations were created in myriad different ways based on myriad political theories or circumstances. But times change and societies change. Your last paragraph also defeats your own point. If army will rise with the people then private ownership of guns is useless in overthrowing a government. If not then your private guns won't help you either. And if you think that is uniquely American thing, no army in every European first world country would behave in completely the same way. That is why we do not worry about not being able to get rid of out governments without massive private gun ownership. They bring nothing significant to the table when we are talking about rare revolution compared to problems they bring in times when there is no revolution going, which is like 99.9999% of the time. Also with effective enforcement of gun bans it is actually extremely hard for any but very wealthy and well organized criminals to get their hands on the gun. Of course the whole issue is between strictness of enforcement and not limiting other freedoms too much. Also it depends a lot on geographical circumstances. But your statement that the it is just slightly more difficult is wrong. The point isn't that the people with rifles would stand much of a chance against F22 fighter jets or cruise missiles, it is that the government would have to commit mass genocide against it's own people to disarm them if they are literally up in arms against tyranny, because they would not go peacefully. So in your mind mass genocide is a better alternative to going peacefully? It really is an angry and violent worldview you present.
If anger and violence are what it takes to maintain true freedom in society, these traits should be encouraged in people. You don't think so? I may be viewed as a lunatic by some, but the majority of people would agree that freedom is worth fighting for, and I would contend that people who don't see that are the lunatic fringe. If I am facing possible death for not conforming to a locked down societal system, then what is going peacefully worth anyway? Bending over and taking the rule of dictators is not a solution for anything except being guaranteeing you'll live another day. Who cares. I would rather die than not be free. Take any example of tyranny or dictatorships or other closed societies throughout history. Freedom was only maintained through blood. It might take that, or it might just take a peaceful yet angry protest if the leaders are reasonable and hear you out. Either way I will fight and die for it if neccessary.
Let it never be said that we did nothing.
|
On March 01 2012 23:11 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 22:59 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis. in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering. also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for. Your claims that we do not know our history are completely wrong and projection of your own issues. That you do not know European history does not mean we do not know yours. How your country was founded 300 years ago is no reason not to base national decisions on reason instead of tradition. All of Europeans nations were created in myriad different ways based on myriad political theories or circumstances. But times change and societies change. Your last paragraph also defeats your own point. If army will rise with the people then private ownership of guns is useless in overthrowing a government. If not then your private guns won't help you either. And if you think that is uniquely American thing, no army in every European first world country would behave in completely the same way. That is why we do not worry about not being able to get rid of out governments without massive private gun ownership. They bring nothing significant to the table when we are talking about rare revolution compared to problems they bring in times when there is no revolution going, which is like 99.9999% of the time. Also with effective enforcement of gun bans it is actually extremely hard for any but very wealthy and well organized criminals to get their hands on the gun. Of course the whole issue is between strictness of enforcement and not limiting other freedoms too much. Also it depends a lot on geographical circumstances. But your statement that the it is just slightly more difficult is wrong. You underestimate the power of a concerned American citizen with a rifle that he has practice with. You also underestimate the power of an armed populace. The point isn't that the people with rifles would stand much of a chance against F22 fighter jets or cruise missiles, it is that the government would have to commit mass genocide against it's own people to disarm them if they are literally up in arms against tyranny, because they would not go peacefully. The right to bear arms is a mutual understanding and respect from the government and its people that this will never happen.
No I do not underestimate power of people with guns, too many examples in the history. Government would also have to commit genocide if populace of unarmed (or at least without guns) protesters would rise up against it, not that much changes with guns. Well too bad for you, others are able to achieve that understanding without the ever-present threat of guns (though the threat of violence is there of course ).
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 01 2012 23:21 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 22:57 TanGeng wrote:On March 01 2012 22:41 mcc wrote:
Actually people can easily take away things from you, no government necessary for that. If 90% of the society decides to take away your guns, they will do it and no government and no "rights" will protect you. You have extremely simple and naive view of the actual relationship between individual, society and government.
As for your argument about people being born with rights. Can you show me on an infant where can I locate those rights when he is born ? If you cannot, they are societal or mental construct as they do not have physical existence. And since "rights" is part of ethics/morality and that governs interactions within a society it is not individual mental construct, but societal one.
This is a clear expression of the validity of the tyranny of the majority. Just because 90% society decides to enslave the other 10% does it make it right? And what if the 10% couldn't defend themselves against such popular transgressions of their persons with weapons like guns? The one big disconnect that seems to be underneath the argument is the premise that societal decisions drives government policy, as if government was the perfect expression of public choice. Democratic government generally carries out its own separate agenda while loudly advertising itself as acting in the public good or acting in accordance to public choice. I am not expressing that it is the right thing, I was just reacting to him saying that noone other than government can take things away from him. Which is of course incorrect as societal rules were enforced long time before any governments came to be. If it is right is another issue altogether, sometimes it is sometimes it is not. And 10% armed people are still going to be forced to do whatever the 90% of the also armed people want. Of course there are differences between society's wishes and government actions. Sometimes it is so by design to actually prevent tyranny of majority and similar checks and balances. Of course they fail in face of determined enough majority. Sometimes the disparity is bad and reflects corruption and other negative things. But there is still some correlation between those two and in the end society is the main decider (see all the popular revolutions in history).
So tyranny of the majority is a given? That's a strong reason why minorities should be allowed the right of self-defense and gun ownership to push back against the larger majority. If the larger majority are sociopaths and perfectly willing to kill the minority if they don't get to impress the minority into involuntary service, then society has the greater problem of being nearly entirely sociopaths.
So I think you are saying societal pressure is bad, if government force is bad? I don't understand how you can make that equivalence if you can say that government deviates from reflecting public choice.
Social pressure likewise can take things away from individuals in society, but there hasn't been a direct assertion that societal pressure is bad.
|
All these arguments about 'self defense' are ridiculous. If you weren't allowed to carry guns like you can candy bars in America, there would be no need for 'self defense' via a gun. If the media wasn't pumping biased fear into your brains on a daily basis, you wouldn't have this ridiculous train of thought that goes something like this, "ohhhh man, I'm probably going to get mugged or raped today, so i'll carry a gun in my purse!". Really? Now, don't get me wrong, I understand there are some unfortunate people in society who turn to crime, but where do they hang out? In the slums of course, if you travel there for an evening stroll, then tbh, you deserve to be mugged. Even then, the chances of you getting mugged is incredibly low.
Seriously, self defense? What are you gonna do if someone comes up to and asks for your wallet, or invades your home? (the chances of a house invasion are almost 0, and I feel silly for even bringing it up, but in reality, some bozo would have rebutted me with it). kill him? Seems a bit harsh. Here's a train of thought, get some pepper spray, or even at most, a taser. Guns for personal protection is the biggest load of shit I've ever heard. Guns should be used for hunting purposes only. A gun should be one of the hardest objects to attain, and you should have a proven track record of not being a lunatic to be able to get one.
And you Americans that are all, "hurr durr it's my right to carry a gun".. well good on you, you're only making society a more dangerous and a more terrible place. Oh and don't forget your promoting an idea which is based on flawed logic and ideas. The right to bare arms? If those founding fathers of yours would see the mess guns has caused, they'd shit them selves.
This thread alone, has just re-hashed the fact that America is more backwards that it ever has been. It's time the American people stop drinking the koolaid and wake up. What you see on cops, is facade, and not the truth of society. This 'fear' that so many of you seem to feel, or this, sense of responsibility to protect your family by means of a gun, is just absurd. If you knew the facts, the statistics, or even did a little research on the matter, you'd realize that guns cause far more harm than they do good.
One last thing: roughly 100 years ago, it was your right as an American to own several slaves. Using simple propositional logic, you wouldn't give up your slave if that law was still around today? That my friends, is horribly close minded and dangerous.
On March 01 2012 22:39 Deadlifter wrote:
Peace and love, lmfao.
You realize its common for people to get shot in cold blood so people can mug their bodies with less resistance right? And rape and murder happen daily... I think your peace and love point of view is incredibly naive. People need the means to protect themselves from people who don't play by the rules. The real world isn't disney land, and bad shit happens whether you like it or not.
Besides, the implication that if you own guns you can't be peaceful and loving is hillarious. If anything I'd say someone who doesn't care enough to bother taking the necessary steps to protect their family is the one who is not loving. Also, did you ever consider that the "peace" you speak of will very realistically be a product of armed people? Would you break into a house where you knew people were armed? Risking your life for a few dollars? Doubtful.
All I can say is: Wow, please, do some research, and get a clue.
|
On March 01 2012 23:30 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 23:11 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 22:59 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis. in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering. also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for. Your claims that we do not know our history are completely wrong and projection of your own issues. That you do not know European history does not mean we do not know yours. How your country was founded 300 years ago is no reason not to base national decisions on reason instead of tradition. All of Europeans nations were created in myriad different ways based on myriad political theories or circumstances. But times change and societies change. Your last paragraph also defeats your own point. If army will rise with the people then private ownership of guns is useless in overthrowing a government. If not then your private guns won't help you either. And if you think that is uniquely American thing, no army in every European first world country would behave in completely the same way. That is why we do not worry about not being able to get rid of out governments without massive private gun ownership. They bring nothing significant to the table when we are talking about rare revolution compared to problems they bring in times when there is no revolution going, which is like 99.9999% of the time. Also with effective enforcement of gun bans it is actually extremely hard for any but very wealthy and well organized criminals to get their hands on the gun. Of course the whole issue is between strictness of enforcement and not limiting other freedoms too much. Also it depends a lot on geographical circumstances. But your statement that the it is just slightly more difficult is wrong. You underestimate the power of a concerned American citizen with a rifle that he has practice with. You also underestimate the power of an armed populace. The point isn't that the people with rifles would stand much of a chance against F22 fighter jets or cruise missiles, it is that the government would have to commit mass genocide against it's own people to disarm them if they are literally up in arms against tyranny, because they would not go peacefully. The right to bear arms is a mutual understanding and respect from the government and its people that this will never happen. No I do not underestimate power of people with guns, too many examples in the history. Government would also have to commit genocide if populace of unarmed (or at least without guns) protesters would rise up against it, not that much changes with guns. Well too bad for you, others are able to achieve that understanding without the ever-present threat of guns (though the threat of violence is there of course ).
You say they achieve that understanding without guns.... but what happens when the rule of government falls into the hands of a dictator who does not give a damn what the people want (let's not debate how likely it is: it is theoretical)? How do they rise up? What threat of violence is there from an unarmed populace (or at least without guns)? Even basic riot gear, not even discussing military tech, can handle pretty much everything aside from guns and homemade explosives (ie the IRA).
I think the answer is they adapt to their new leaders' rule of government, ie. they bend over and take it. See my above post on how I feel about that.
|
On March 01 2012 23:39 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 23:30 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 23:11 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 22:59 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis. in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering. also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for. Your claims that we do not know our history are completely wrong and projection of your own issues. That you do not know European history does not mean we do not know yours. How your country was founded 300 years ago is no reason not to base national decisions on reason instead of tradition. All of Europeans nations were created in myriad different ways based on myriad political theories or circumstances. But times change and societies change. Your last paragraph also defeats your own point. If army will rise with the people then private ownership of guns is useless in overthrowing a government. If not then your private guns won't help you either. And if you think that is uniquely American thing, no army in every European first world country would behave in completely the same way. That is why we do not worry about not being able to get rid of out governments without massive private gun ownership. They bring nothing significant to the table when we are talking about rare revolution compared to problems they bring in times when there is no revolution going, which is like 99.9999% of the time. Also with effective enforcement of gun bans it is actually extremely hard for any but very wealthy and well organized criminals to get their hands on the gun. Of course the whole issue is between strictness of enforcement and not limiting other freedoms too much. Also it depends a lot on geographical circumstances. But your statement that the it is just slightly more difficult is wrong. You underestimate the power of a concerned American citizen with a rifle that he has practice with. You also underestimate the power of an armed populace. The point isn't that the people with rifles would stand much of a chance against F22 fighter jets or cruise missiles, it is that the government would have to commit mass genocide against it's own people to disarm them if they are literally up in arms against tyranny, because they would not go peacefully. The right to bear arms is a mutual understanding and respect from the government and its people that this will never happen. No I do not underestimate power of people with guns, too many examples in the history. Government would also have to commit genocide if populace of unarmed (or at least without guns) protesters would rise up against it, not that much changes with guns. Well too bad for you, others are able to achieve that understanding without the ever-present threat of guns (though the threat of violence is there of course ). You say they achieve that understanding without guns.... but what happens when the rule of government falls into the hands of a dictator who does not give a damn what the people want (let's not debate how likely it is: it is theoretical)? How do they rise up? What threat of violence is there from an unarmed populace (or at least without guns)? Even basic riot gear, not even discussing military tech, can handle pretty much everything aside from guns and homemade explosives (ie the IRA). I think the answer is they adapt to their new leaders' rule of government, ie. they bend over and take it. See my above post on how I feel about that.
Are you seriously basing the need to own and carry a gun for personal use on the fact that you need to rise up against a dictator? Wow. Cause oh yea! in today's day in age, where you actually get to vote on who rules the country, the mass majority of the population will vote for an evil dictator! Seriously guys, lets use some logic and rational thought here, ok?
|
On March 01 2012 23:15 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 23:11 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 22:59 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis. in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering. also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for. Your claims that we do not know our history are completely wrong and projection of your own issues. That you do not know European history does not mean we do not know yours. How your country was founded 300 years ago is no reason not to base national decisions on reason instead of tradition. All of Europeans nations were created in myriad different ways based on myriad political theories or circumstances. But times change and societies change. Your last paragraph also defeats your own point. If army will rise with the people then private ownership of guns is useless in overthrowing a government. If not then your private guns won't help you either. And if you think that is uniquely American thing, no army in every European first world country would behave in completely the same way. That is why we do not worry about not being able to get rid of out governments without massive private gun ownership. They bring nothing significant to the table when we are talking about rare revolution compared to problems they bring in times when there is no revolution going, which is like 99.9999% of the time. Also with effective enforcement of gun bans it is actually extremely hard for any but very wealthy and well organized criminals to get their hands on the gun. Of course the whole issue is between strictness of enforcement and not limiting other freedoms too much. Also it depends a lot on geographical circumstances. But your statement that the it is just slightly more difficult is wrong. The point isn't that the people with rifles would stand much of a chance against F22 fighter jets or cruise missiles, it is that the government would have to commit mass genocide against it's own people to disarm them if they are literally up in arms against tyranny, because they would not go peacefully. So in your mind mass genocide is a better alternative to going peacefully? It really is an angry and violent worldview you present.
Sometimes risking the genocide is better alternative. When the government is too divorced from the general plight and wishes of the society it is exactly what happens. Of course genocide scenario does not happen and government is violently, but far from genocide level violent, overthrown.
|
On March 01 2012 23:38 churbro wrote:
All these arguments about 'self defense' are ridiculous. If you weren't allowed to carry guns like you can candy bars in America, there would be no need for 'self defense' via a gun. If the media wasn't pumping biased fear into your brains on a daily basis, you wouldn't have this ridiculous train of thought that goes something like this, "ohhhh man, I'm probably going to get mugged or raped today, so i'll carry a gun in my purse!". Really?
Seriously, self defense? What are you gonna do if someone comes up to and asks for your wallet, or invades your home? (the chances of a house invasion are almost 0, and I feel silly for even bringing it up, but in reality, some bozo would have rebutted me with it). kill him? Seems a bit harsh. Here's a train of thought, get some pepper spray, or even at most, a taser. Guns for personal protection is the biggest load of shit I've ever heard. Guns should be used for hunting purposes only. A gun should be one of the hardest objects to attain, and you should have a proven track record of not being a lunatic to be able to get one.
And you Americans that are all, "hurr durr it's my right to carry a gun".. well good on you, you're only making society a more dangerous and a more terrible place. Oh and don't forget your promoting an idea which is based on flawed logic and ideas. The right to bare arms? If those founding fathers of yours would see the mess guns has caused, they'd shit them selves.
Read back some and you'll answer your own questions. But I'll restate it for you.
1. A small chance does not mean no chance. I promise my wife will never get raped with a gun in her purse. Now she never has to worry about how likely it is.
2. I can cite study after case after incident on how tazeguns and pepper spray fail people. And alot of criminals laugh if you brandish it. There is an extreme respect for something that can kill you, not just lay you out or burn your eyes. No one buys a gun with the intention to kill people except criminals. Most gun owners won't shoot you in the heart or head if you try to mug them with a knife. Most won't even need to pull the trigger. They respect the weapon and its deadly power. As I've stated previously if you read the thread, all it takes for most petty criminals is the threat because they are chickenshits. That threat is enough reason for me to carry. Imagine if a criminal knew every citizen was armed with a gun and knew how to use it. Oh by the way we call that track record a background check, and it is accurate in most cases.
3. What is exactly is terrible about a society that can defend itself from whatever grave threat comes at it? That is acting as a responsible adult in my opinion....acknowledging that humanity is flawed and choosing not to become a statistic, instead of pretending like the world is hunky dory and everything is peachy when it is not a fictional story that people get robbed, raped, injured, or killed every day in this country. The number of criminals who are successful at these acts vs an armed person is DRASTICALLY reduced, and if the price is PTSD, injury, or death for that criminal than so fucking be it.
|
On March 01 2012 23:28 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 23:15 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 23:11 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 22:59 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis. in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering. also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for. Your claims that we do not know our history are completely wrong and projection of your own issues. That you do not know European history does not mean we do not know yours. How your country was founded 300 years ago is no reason not to base national decisions on reason instead of tradition. All of Europeans nations were created in myriad different ways based on myriad political theories or circumstances. But times change and societies change. Your last paragraph also defeats your own point. If army will rise with the people then private ownership of guns is useless in overthrowing a government. If not then your private guns won't help you either. And if you think that is uniquely American thing, no army in every European first world country would behave in completely the same way. That is why we do not worry about not being able to get rid of out governments without massive private gun ownership. They bring nothing significant to the table when we are talking about rare revolution compared to problems they bring in times when there is no revolution going, which is like 99.9999% of the time. Also with effective enforcement of gun bans it is actually extremely hard for any but very wealthy and well organized criminals to get their hands on the gun. Of course the whole issue is between strictness of enforcement and not limiting other freedoms too much. Also it depends a lot on geographical circumstances. But your statement that the it is just slightly more difficult is wrong. The point isn't that the people with rifles would stand much of a chance against F22 fighter jets or cruise missiles, it is that the government would have to commit mass genocide against it's own people to disarm them if they are literally up in arms against tyranny, because they would not go peacefully. So in your mind mass genocide is a better alternative to going peacefully? It really is an angry and violent worldview you present. If anger and violence are what it takes to maintain true freedom in society, these traits should be encouraged in people. You don't think so? I may be viewed as a lunatic by some, but the majority of people would agree that freedom is worth fighting for, and I would contend that people who don't see that are the lunatic fringe. If I am facing possible death for not conforming to a locked down societal system, then what is going peacefully worth anyway? Bending over and taking the rule of dictators is not a solution for anything except being guaranteeing you'll live another day. Who cares. I would rather die than not be free. Take any example of tyranny or dictatorships or other closed societies throughout history. Freedom was only maintained through blood. It might take that, or it might just take a peaceful yet angry protest if the leaders are reasonable and hear you out. Either way I will fight and die for it if neccessary. Let it never be said that we did nothing.
Most people do not really care about freedom, and revolutions are in majority based on material problems (poverty, physical oppression). Dictatorships that care well enough about physical well-being of people are overthrown only after society is so well-off that people in general actually start caring about things like freedom of speech and similar, as those are the only things that can move their prosperity forward, and those revolutions are mostly not that bloody. Of course most dictatorships do not really care about that population that well and their economic policy is often a joke, so the revolutions come faster than that.
|
On March 01 2012 23:47 churbro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 23:39 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 23:30 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 23:11 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 22:59 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis. in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering. also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for. Your claims that we do not know our history are completely wrong and projection of your own issues. That you do not know European history does not mean we do not know yours. How your country was founded 300 years ago is no reason not to base national decisions on reason instead of tradition. All of Europeans nations were created in myriad different ways based on myriad political theories or circumstances. But times change and societies change. Your last paragraph also defeats your own point. If army will rise with the people then private ownership of guns is useless in overthrowing a government. If not then your private guns won't help you either. And if you think that is uniquely American thing, no army in every European first world country would behave in completely the same way. That is why we do not worry about not being able to get rid of out governments without massive private gun ownership. They bring nothing significant to the table when we are talking about rare revolution compared to problems they bring in times when there is no revolution going, which is like 99.9999% of the time. Also with effective enforcement of gun bans it is actually extremely hard for any but very wealthy and well organized criminals to get their hands on the gun. Of course the whole issue is between strictness of enforcement and not limiting other freedoms too much. Also it depends a lot on geographical circumstances. But your statement that the it is just slightly more difficult is wrong. You underestimate the power of a concerned American citizen with a rifle that he has practice with. You also underestimate the power of an armed populace. The point isn't that the people with rifles would stand much of a chance against F22 fighter jets or cruise missiles, it is that the government would have to commit mass genocide against it's own people to disarm them if they are literally up in arms against tyranny, because they would not go peacefully. The right to bear arms is a mutual understanding and respect from the government and its people that this will never happen. No I do not underestimate power of people with guns, too many examples in the history. Government would also have to commit genocide if populace of unarmed (or at least without guns) protesters would rise up against it, not that much changes with guns. Well too bad for you, others are able to achieve that understanding without the ever-present threat of guns (though the threat of violence is there of course ). You say they achieve that understanding without guns.... but what happens when the rule of government falls into the hands of a dictator who does not give a damn what the people want (let's not debate how likely it is: it is theoretical)? How do they rise up? What threat of violence is there from an unarmed populace (or at least without guns)? Even basic riot gear, not even discussing military tech, can handle pretty much everything aside from guns and homemade explosives (ie the IRA). I think the answer is they adapt to their new leaders' rule of government, ie. they bend over and take it. See my above post on how I feel about that. Are you seriously basing the need to own and carry a gun for personal use on the fact that you need to rise up against a dictator? Wow. Cause oh yea! in today's day in age, where you actually get to vote on who rules the country, the mass majority of the population will vote for an evil dictator! Seriously guys, lets use some logic and rational thought here, ok?
Nope I'm not. Thanks for the assumption though. Read any of my posts. I have a rifle locked away for that purpose. I only carry a pistol on occasion when that applies to my current risks.
It doesn't matter how dictators are put into power. The fact is they have been throughout history, and often from a free society that never saw it coming.
And it's not just dictatorships. Fascist states come from all flavors.
I challenge you to follow your own advice and be rational before you post.
|
On March 01 2012 23:54 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 23:28 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 23:15 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 23:11 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 22:59 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis. in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering. also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for. Your claims that we do not know our history are completely wrong and projection of your own issues. That you do not know European history does not mean we do not know yours. How your country was founded 300 years ago is no reason not to base national decisions on reason instead of tradition. All of Europeans nations were created in myriad different ways based on myriad political theories or circumstances. But times change and societies change. Your last paragraph also defeats your own point. If army will rise with the people then private ownership of guns is useless in overthrowing a government. If not then your private guns won't help you either. And if you think that is uniquely American thing, no army in every European first world country would behave in completely the same way. That is why we do not worry about not being able to get rid of out governments without massive private gun ownership. They bring nothing significant to the table when we are talking about rare revolution compared to problems they bring in times when there is no revolution going, which is like 99.9999% of the time. Also with effective enforcement of gun bans it is actually extremely hard for any but very wealthy and well organized criminals to get their hands on the gun. Of course the whole issue is between strictness of enforcement and not limiting other freedoms too much. Also it depends a lot on geographical circumstances. But your statement that the it is just slightly more difficult is wrong. The point isn't that the people with rifles would stand much of a chance against F22 fighter jets or cruise missiles, it is that the government would have to commit mass genocide against it's own people to disarm them if they are literally up in arms against tyranny, because they would not go peacefully. So in your mind mass genocide is a better alternative to going peacefully? It really is an angry and violent worldview you present. If anger and violence are what it takes to maintain true freedom in society, these traits should be encouraged in people. You don't think so? I may be viewed as a lunatic by some, but the majority of people would agree that freedom is worth fighting for, and I would contend that people who don't see that are the lunatic fringe. If I am facing possible death for not conforming to a locked down societal system, then what is going peacefully worth anyway? Bending over and taking the rule of dictators is not a solution for anything except being guaranteeing you'll live another day. Who cares. I would rather die than not be free. Take any example of tyranny or dictatorships or other closed societies throughout history. Freedom was only maintained through blood. It might take that, or it might just take a peaceful yet angry protest if the leaders are reasonable and hear you out. Either way I will fight and die for it if neccessary. Let it never be said that we did nothing. Most people do not really care about freedom, and revolutions are in majority based on material problems (poverty, physical oppression). Dictatorships that care well enough about physical well-being of people are overthrown only after society is so well-off that people in general actually start caring about things like freedom of speech and similar, as those are the only things that can move their prosperity forward, and those revolutions are mostly not that bloody. Of course most dictatorships do not really care about that population that well and their economic policy is often a joke, so the revolutions come faster than that.
Agreed. And first world freedoms have now become par for the course, even the most braindead morons know that they have modern freedoms, so it would be really hard for a state to reverse modern societal progress in liberty. I concede that in my opinion the chance of this ever happening in our first world free societies is miniscule because modern man's average education is much higher than ever.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 01 2012 23:57 StarStrider wrote:
And it's not just dictatorships. Fascist states come from all flavors.
There have been many states that made the seamless transition from Democracy to dictatorship.
As for fighting tyranny, it's a matter of choosing to fight the revolution before the dictatorship gets entrenched rather than after a dictator has crippled the economy of a country for 40 years and people get desperate.
A simple difference in mentality. "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
|
On March 01 2012 23:31 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 23:21 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 22:57 TanGeng wrote:On March 01 2012 22:41 mcc wrote:
Actually people can easily take away things from you, no government necessary for that. If 90% of the society decides to take away your guns, they will do it and no government and no "rights" will protect you. You have extremely simple and naive view of the actual relationship between individual, society and government.
As for your argument about people being born with rights. Can you show me on an infant where can I locate those rights when he is born ? If you cannot, they are societal or mental construct as they do not have physical existence. And since "rights" is part of ethics/morality and that governs interactions within a society it is not individual mental construct, but societal one.
This is a clear expression of the validity of the tyranny of the majority. Just because 90% society decides to enslave the other 10% does it make it right? And what if the 10% couldn't defend themselves against such popular transgressions of their persons with weapons like guns? The one big disconnect that seems to be underneath the argument is the premise that societal decisions drives government policy, as if government was the perfect expression of public choice. Democratic government generally carries out its own separate agenda while loudly advertising itself as acting in the public good or acting in accordance to public choice. I am not expressing that it is the right thing, I was just reacting to him saying that noone other than government can take things away from him. Which is of course incorrect as societal rules were enforced long time before any governments came to be. If it is right is another issue altogether, sometimes it is sometimes it is not. And 10% armed people are still going to be forced to do whatever the 90% of the also armed people want. Of course there are differences between society's wishes and government actions. Sometimes it is so by design to actually prevent tyranny of majority and similar checks and balances. Of course they fail in face of determined enough majority. Sometimes the disparity is bad and reflects corruption and other negative things. But there is still some correlation between those two and in the end society is the main decider (see all the popular revolutions in history). So tyranny of the majority is a given? That's a strong reason why minorities should be allowed the right of self-defense and gun ownership to push back against the larger majority. If the larger majority are sociopaths and perfectly willing to kill the minority if they don't get to impress the minority into involuntary service, then society has the greater problem of being nearly entirely sociopaths. So I think you are saying societal pressure is bad, if government force is bad? I don't understand how you can make that equivalence if you can say that government deviates from reflecting public choice. Social pressure likewise can take things away from individuals in society, but there hasn't been a direct assertion that societal pressure is bad.
Tyranny of a majority is given if the majority wants to exercise its power and is determined, but that does not mean that it has to exercise its power, it just can. It happened often in the past and is happening (mostly in more subtle ways in modern prosperous countries) today. They do not need to be sociopaths to force minority to obey. For example majority can force minority to give up portion of their income to be spent on communal projects, it can force minority to give up some activity,... Sometimes their enforcement of things is moral sometimes it is not. Just to note it is biologically impossible for majority to be sociopaths anyway (barring some strange anomaly that cannot naturally occur).
No, I am saying that sometimes societal pressure is bad and sometimes governmental pressure is bad. The specific verdict depends on the what is being forced. Mostly those two pressures coincide or at least do not diverge too much. When they diverge a lot it is often a sign that either government is doing something bad or society is and is definitely something that should be paid attention to.
|
On March 02 2012 00:04 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 23:57 StarStrider wrote:
And it's not just dictatorships. Fascist states come from all flavors.
There have been many states that made the seamless transition from Democracy to dictatorship. As for fighting tyranny, it's a matter of choosing to fight the revolution before the dictatorship gets entrenched rather than after a dictator has crippled the economy of a country for 40 years and people get desperate. A simple difference in mentality. "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
+1
|
On March 01 2012 23:39 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 23:30 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 23:11 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 22:59 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis. in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering. also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for. Your claims that we do not know our history are completely wrong and projection of your own issues. That you do not know European history does not mean we do not know yours. How your country was founded 300 years ago is no reason not to base national decisions on reason instead of tradition. All of Europeans nations were created in myriad different ways based on myriad political theories or circumstances. But times change and societies change. Your last paragraph also defeats your own point. If army will rise with the people then private ownership of guns is useless in overthrowing a government. If not then your private guns won't help you either. And if you think that is uniquely American thing, no army in every European first world country would behave in completely the same way. That is why we do not worry about not being able to get rid of out governments without massive private gun ownership. They bring nothing significant to the table when we are talking about rare revolution compared to problems they bring in times when there is no revolution going, which is like 99.9999% of the time. Also with effective enforcement of gun bans it is actually extremely hard for any but very wealthy and well organized criminals to get their hands on the gun. Of course the whole issue is between strictness of enforcement and not limiting other freedoms too much. Also it depends a lot on geographical circumstances. But your statement that the it is just slightly more difficult is wrong. You underestimate the power of a concerned American citizen with a rifle that he has practice with. You also underestimate the power of an armed populace. The point isn't that the people with rifles would stand much of a chance against F22 fighter jets or cruise missiles, it is that the government would have to commit mass genocide against it's own people to disarm them if they are literally up in arms against tyranny, because they would not go peacefully. The right to bear arms is a mutual understanding and respect from the government and its people that this will never happen. No I do not underestimate power of people with guns, too many examples in the history. Government would also have to commit genocide if populace of unarmed (or at least without guns) protesters would rise up against it, not that much changes with guns. Well too bad for you, others are able to achieve that understanding without the ever-present threat of guns (though the threat of violence is there of course ). You say they achieve that understanding without guns.... but what happens when the rule of government falls into the hands of a dictator who does not give a damn what the people want (let's not debate how likely it is: it is theoretical)? How do they rise up? What threat of violence is there from an unarmed populace (or at least without guns)? Even basic riot gear, not even discussing military tech, can handle pretty much everything aside from guns and homemade explosives (ie the IRA). I think the answer is they adapt to their new leaders' rule of government, ie. they bend over and take it. See my above post on how I feel about that.
In modern societies as we already observed army will mostly take a side of the populace. If it does not even armed population won't be able to do anything. As for older times, see all the hundreds and thousands of successful and unsuccessful revolutions.
Sometimes they will bend over, but if things get really bad revolutions start and change happens.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 02 2012 00:06 mcc wrote:
No, I am saying that sometimes societal pressure is bad and sometimes governmental pressure is bad. The specific verdict depends on the what is being forced. Mostly those two pressures coincide or at least do not diverge too much. When they diverge a lot it is often a sign that either government is doing something bad or society is and is definitely something that should be paid attention to.
How is societal pressure bad? It's soft pressure, not binding, and not violence, unless you're talking about criminal activity in which case right to self-defense interdicts. It can't reach into the privacy of people's homes and only acts on what members show to the rest of society. There's discrimination, but there's always discrimination and often amplified in context of government organizations.
|
On March 02 2012 00:04 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 23:57 StarStrider wrote:
And it's not just dictatorships. Fascist states come from all flavors.
There have been many states that made the seamless transition from Democracy to dictatorship. As for fighting tyranny, it's a matter of choosing to fight the revolution before the dictatorship gets entrenched rather than after a dictator has crippled the economy of a country for 40 years and people get desperate. A simple difference in mentality. "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
Yes and if you do not have support of the majority you will lose that fight. And majority won't support you unless things get bad economically. So no way to prevent it once majority actually doe not mind the transition. All the seamless transitions from "democracy" to dictatorship were done with (often uninformed) consent of the majority. The only way to prevent it is to fight it ideologically before it happens (or in very rare cases violently to "wake up" the silent, but opposing majority).
As for those naive "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.". Only people who were never forced with a choice say it so confidently. It is more internet tough-guy pose.
|
On March 02 2012 00:14 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 00:06 mcc wrote:
No, I am saying that sometimes societal pressure is bad and sometimes governmental pressure is bad. The specific verdict depends on the what is being forced. Mostly those two pressures coincide or at least do not diverge too much. When they diverge a lot it is often a sign that either government is doing something bad or society is and is definitely something that should be paid attention to. How is societal pressure bad? It's soft pressure, not binding, and not violence, unless you're talking about criminal activity in which case right to self-defense interdicts. It can't reach into the privacy of people's homes and only acts on what members show to the rest of society. There's discrimination, but there's always discrimination and often amplified in context of government organizations.
You are assuming presence of government. Societal pressure in such scenario is softened by government and is one of its main purposes. But when government is weak or absent (see all the prehistoric societies) societal pressure can easily be backed by force and extremely violent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
