EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JD.Cursed
United States19 Posts
On September 06 2018 22:28 farvacola wrote: That's all fine and dandy, I'm mostly just pointing out that the "resist tyranny" argument is quite inferior by comparison with the more simple, more easily defended personal defense argument. Having a gun so you can defend your home and family, as specious as that may be when viewed alongside stats that indicate that civilians are bad at using guns correctly, is the basic stuff of the 2nd Amendment imo, outdated textual language notwithstanding. I wasnt making the defense argument because people too easily dismiss it because they believe the police will protect them. Which I do believe they'll try, but may not be able to. If someone wants to murder you but you cant prove they've made threats, the police cannot act. If someone is in the process of murdering you, the police may not get there in time. I also live in the mountains where mountain lion and bear attacks are actually pretty common. My uncle lives on the Mexican border in Arizona and actually had a man who had been shot wander into his garage a few years ago. But I dislike having to make hypothetical situations like this because the fact is there exists a set of circumstances which would favor any and all sides to any argument. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 06 2018 22:03 JD.Cursed wrote: The argument that the 2nd Amendment was written so that people could keep a flint-lock rifle in their home and not an AK-47 is flawed. The idea behind the 2nd Amendment is not so simple as "we like guns and we're gonna keep them." Its more of an insurance policy to protect citizens against tyranny, of any era. By giving Americans the right to bear arms, we the people, ensure that if the government ever becomes tyrannical, we have the means to overthrow and replace it. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security” Im very glad the second amendment has survived mostly intact to present day. Armed resistance to tyranny and self-reliance is a very old tradition here. And even if somehow the army remains loyal while slaughtering its own fellow citizens in armed resistance, we will surely make it bloody enough to dissuade the kind of autocracy that would need the military to enforce it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8165 Posts
On September 06 2018 23:16 JD.Cursed wrote: I also live in the mountains where mountain lion and bear attacks are actually pretty common. Just to make it clear: No reasonable person wants to take away your guns for this purpose. Hunting or simply defending yourself against wild animals is one of the few legit reasons for owning one. I do not believe you need an ar15 for that tho, and throwing in some mandatory practice and written tests is also a good idea to lower the accident rate. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Anti-gun new control laws: I need a gun to protect myself from wild bears and a tyrannical state. Gun control: Demanding guns so you can shoot at police that you think are tyrants isn’t a great argument. Now, that wild bear thing sounds like thing you would need a gun for, so I can see that. Anti-gun new control laws: Our founding fathers wanted people to have guns to fight a bad government, like they did during the Revolution. Gun control: Um…that is fine, but the government is still going to win. Also, I agree self defense is a good reason to have guns. Anti-gun new control laws: You don’t understand the 2nd Amendment and how guns are necessary to be free under an oppressive government. Gun control: My guy, you had me over with the wild bear. Bears are legit. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 06 2018 23:23 Danglars wrote: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security” Im very glad the second amendment has survived mostly intact to present day. Armed resistance to tyranny and self-reliance is a very old tradition here. And even if somehow the army remains loyal while slaughtering its own fellow citizens in armed resistance, we will surely make it bloody enough to dissuade the kind of autocracy that would need the military to enforce it. I'm very sad that you still don't realise that if that tyranny comes, the guys with the guns are going to support it, the way they have at almost every other point in history. I've seen plenty of posts by US 'proud gun owners' saying things like 'kill all liberals' and 'if Trump gives the command, I'll be in the streets ten minutes later, who'll be with me' around the internet, and getting massive upvotes as well. It's arguably even sadder that you haven't noticed that the corporations already stole your government from the people without a shot being fired, and you enthusiastically support them doing so. One day you'll learn that the things your guns are allegedly there to prevent, can't be so easily stopped. | ||
|
JD.Cursed
United States19 Posts
On September 07 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote: Every argument seems to go something like this: Anti-gun new control laws: I need a gun to protect myself from wild bears and a tyrannical state. Gun control: Demanding guns so you can shoot at police that you think are tyrants isn’t a great argument. Now, that wild bear thing sounds like thing you would need a gun for, so I can see that. Anti-gun new control laws: Our founding fathers wanted people to have guns to fight a bad government, like they did during the Revolution. Gun control: Um…that is fine, but the government is still going to win. Also, I agree self defense is a good reason to have guns. Anti-gun new control laws: You don’t understand the 2nd Amendment and how guns are necessary to be free under an oppressive government. Gun control: My guy, you had me over with the wild bear. Bears are legit. Just to be clear tho, the bears usually just mess up someones yard or car. Occasionally they'll get someone's dog. One neighborhood I lived in growing up the coyotes were eating everyone's cats so the city authorized a hole bunch of hunters to go kill the pack. Shooting animals that are just doing what they do is just as wrong as shooting up a movie theater or a concert imo. There are alot more people than there are animals and they were here first. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 07 2018 00:15 iamthedave wrote: I'm very sad that you still don't realise that if that tyranny comes, the guys with the guns are going to support it, the way they have at almost every other point in history. I've seen plenty of posts by US 'proud gun owners' saying things like 'kill all liberals' and 'if Trump gives the command, I'll be in the streets ten minutes later, who'll be with me' around the internet, and getting massive upvotes as well. It's arguably even sadder that you haven't noticed that the corporations already stole your government from the people without a shot being fired, and you enthusiastically support them doing so. One day you'll learn that the things your guns are allegedly there to prevent, can't be so easily stopped. Nope. It won’t happen. Those are just your private prejudices and fears coming to the fore. Once in our history we had to throw off tyranny. Those were the abuses enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, which I just quoted from. It was armed Americans that kept the revolution alive in its infancy. The one historical trend of tyrannical governments is that they disarm their citizens to make governing against their will easier. It’s really hard to believe you in good faith when you say “the corporations already stole your government from the people without a shot being fired, and you enthusiastically support them doing so.“ If you accuse me of being an enthusiastic participant in the already-enacted corporate takeover of my government, I will dismiss you as a conspiracy kook not worth listening to. And trust me, there’s plenty of nutcases on both sides of the gun debate, and wasting time on them disadvantages the less looney relatives fighting for similar policy outcomes. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 07 2018 00:29 JD.Cursed wrote: Just to be clear tho, the bears usually just mess up someones yard or car. Occasionally they'll get someone's dog. One neighborhood I lived in growing up the coyotes were eating everyone's cats so the city authorized a hole bunch of hunters to go kill the pack. Shooting animals that are just doing what they do is just as wrong as shooting up a movie theater or a concert imo. There are alot more people than there are animals and they were here first. I grew up in rural America, I know all about bears destroying bird feeders and ripping parts off of cars because its fun. I’m not advocating shoot them for causing property damage. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8764 Posts
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with? mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system. and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please. outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
For those interested, Preet Bharara(Former USDA) did a podcast with the founder of Mothers Who Demand action, which is one of the most effective gun control lobbies in the US, passing a number of state laws. She details exactly why focusing on "assault weapons" and gun bans are not effective ways to counter gun violence in the current political climate. It is worth listening to if you want to engage with these discussions in an effective manner and avoid the pitfalls of talk about gun control. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote: people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government. for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with? mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system. and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please. outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off. Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him. Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8165 Posts
On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote: What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? The problem with the "I need to defend myself" argument is that if you can't get your hands on a gun only for self defense, your burglar isn't going to either. And that's ignoring every statistical evidence which shows that owning a gun for "self defense" drastically increases your chances of dying. Like you said: I'd rather not have a shootout in my house over a T.V. either. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 06 2018 22:03 JD.Cursed wrote: The argument that the 2nd Amendment was written so that people could keep a flint-lock rifle in their home and not an AK-47 is flawed. The idea behind the 2nd Amendment is not so simple as "we like guns and we're gonna keep them." Its more of an insurance policy to protect citizens against tyranny, of any era. By giving Americans the right to bear arms, we the people, ensure that if the government ever becomes tyrannical, we have the means to overthrow and replace it. That's an odd argument seeing as it's not particularly true. A lot of people believe as if it's true even though it really isn't. (the insurance policy stuff) but others have already addressed that, so if you don't want to engage in multiple similar lines of discussion tha'ts fine. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote: What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
It appears you are more likely to shoot someone you know than a burglar. Anecdotal evidence seems to be that if you are the type of person who fantasise about shooting a home invader, you are more likely to shoot someone who lives in your house. Which makes sense. If you are a responsible gun owner, you would have your gun locked up and certain of what you are shooting at. | ||
| ||
