|
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 September 07 2018 10:48 JD.Cursed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 10:22 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 07 2018 10:01 JD.Cursed wrote:
Wow I really set fire to another thread.
First I wanna point out, that I called you Australian. Thats far less offensive than saying I know jackshit and calling me ignorant. Im actually trying real hard not to offend anyone so please try to do the same.
And I am going to disagree with your 2nd paragraph. Citizens do have the option to resist the government, but as whoever posted earlier, speech and law are far more effective than force. I got arrested for going bowling when I was 22, you believe that? That judge felt my words. But I was still arrested without ever having commit a crime. That seems tyrannical to me.
I'm not hiding behind anything. I dont own a gun. I dont want a gun. Having a gun causes far more problems than it solves. I am making this argument for Civil Rights and Freedom and all that noble crap. And boredom. And while the law can be argued as irrelevant or outdated, the spirit of that law is not. And never will be. you literally said you know nothing about australia other than what our flag looks like and that we are commonwealth. that qualifies as pretty much jackshit. i wasnt trying to offend, it was an observation based on your confession. your experience with arrest is nowhere near tyrannical. even if we for argument sake said it was, that kind of scale isnt what we're talking about when we discuss the 2nd amendment. besides, how did you solve that problem? you sure as hell didnt pull a gun out and point it at the judge did you your 3rd paragraph is something i could actually agree with. what i dont understand is how you can accept that the law could be irrelevant or outdated, but would choose not to change it despite it being such a massive reason why gun regulation hasnt come to pass I edited the post you quoted a lil bit there. What would you consider tyrannical? And what would you consider tyrannical enough to take up arms against? Those are two very different answers for me. I said it could be argued, not that I accept or agree. And I did also research into England's gun laws for a few min. Hunting rifles and shotguns are actually legal for ordinary citizens to own. Pistols were until the 1 and only school shooting in 1996. And it sounds good. A pistol's only real purpose is murder and suicide. And we'd still have our rifles for the great revolution of neo-fascist quasi dictatorship. Fair compromise, but only if they were taken from police as well.
not sure what your little piece of australian trivia has to do with anything but yeah.
for the purposes of discussing the 2nd amendment tyrannical would be oppression of citizens on a nation-wide scale by the government, not individual cases like yours. and if that tyranny exceeds oppression of civil rights and escalates to massacres then youd find justification in keeping your 2nd amendment. however, we need to be realistic about this scenario's likelihood of occuring. this will never ever occur, and if it did then whether or not you are legally entitled to a firearm to defend against a tyrannical government would be completely irrelevant. your country will not recover and there will no winners. you may survive to live another day but your dollar will probably be the equivalent of zimbabwe's.
at the cost of thousands of unnecessary deaths, you want to defend your rights to fight a government that has no chance of becoming tyrannical, and even if it did your country would be in shambles and the 2nd amendment would have done nothing to actually protect your country. no matter how you look at it the situation is lose lose.
|
On September 07 2018 10:54 JimmiC wrote:
Deal! *quicky shakes hand walk away to draw up bill.
Fine example of democracy in action. Well done everyone. Drinks!
|
On September 07 2018 10:48 JD.Cursed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 10:22 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 07 2018 10:01 JD.Cursed wrote:
Wow I really set fire to another thread.
First I wanna point out, that I called you Australian. Thats far less offensive than saying I know jackshit and calling me ignorant. Im actually trying real hard not to offend anyone so please try to do the same.
And I am going to disagree with your 2nd paragraph. Citizens do have the option to resist the government, but as whoever posted earlier, speech and law are far more effective than force. I got arrested for going bowling when I was 22, you believe that? That judge felt my words. But I was still arrested without ever having commit a crime. That seems tyrannical to me.
I'm not hiding behind anything. I dont own a gun. I dont want a gun. Having a gun causes far more problems than it solves. I am making this argument for Civil Rights and Freedom and all that noble crap. And boredom. And while the law can be argued as irrelevant or outdated, the spirit of that law is not. And never will be. you literally said you know nothing about australia other than what our flag looks like and that we are commonwealth. that qualifies as pretty much jackshit. i wasnt trying to offend, it was an observation based on your confession. your experience with arrest is nowhere near tyrannical. even if we for argument sake said it was, that kind of scale isnt what we're talking about when we discuss the 2nd amendment. besides, how did you solve that problem? you sure as hell didnt pull a gun out and point it at the judge did you your 3rd paragraph is something i could actually agree with. what i dont understand is how you can accept that the law could be irrelevant or outdated, but would choose not to change it despite it being such a massive reason why gun regulation hasnt come to pass I edited the post you quoted a lil bit there. What would you consider tyrannical? And what would you consider tyrannical enough to take up arms against? Those are two very different answers for me. I said it could be argued, not that I accept or agree. And I did also research into England's gun laws for a few min. Hunting rifles and shotguns are actually legal for ordinary citizens to own. Pistols were until the 1 and only school shooting in 1996. And it sounds good. A pistol's only real purpose is murder and suicide. And we'd still have our rifles for the great revolution of neo-fascist quasi dictatorship. Fair compromise, but only if they were taken from police as well. zlefin: I understand a little better now and that is an interesting point. my first counter is "Sic semper tyrannis!" Also I suppose that your right no complete revolution in a world power could be successful without a professional military, however have been wildly effective all over Africa and the Middle East. So instead of revolution call it Coup d'eTat
first, please stick to your earlier pledge to respond to me, without other people's stuff getting in the way, then we can have a proper quotechain to refer back to. Also, please don't edit in answers to me if I wasn't the main recipient of a post. I don't like having to check back to the prior page just to see if you've responded to me by editing into another conversation.
First, "sic semper tyrannis" is not an actual counter; amusing though it be in context, i'm trying to have a serious argument. and I'd rather not mix joke counters with actual counters. If you intend it to be an actual counter, please do it in a clear way, rather than a jokey and vague way.
Second, are you aware of the extent to which the revolutionary war was only successful because other major powers (france in particular) intervened?
Third, I think you misestimate what's actually occurred in africa and the mid east in reference to the actual thesis. They (they meaning personal arms again) have not been wildly effective all over africa and the middle east. (especially not at doing anything about tyranny, which is the subject in question). Successful revolutions are generally a result of either substantial support by a foreign power, OR revolutions done by a faction of the military (or other existing power players who have armed forces of their own).
You should point to the specific examples you think demonstrate your point.
Fourth, coup d'etat is irrelevant to the situation. Because those are not about personal arms of the citizenry at all.
Fifth, even assuming the guns were significantly helpful in a conflict, there's still the question of whether they actually help vs tyranny. Tyrannical governments we're talking about aren't some mythical otherworldly force, in this context we're talking about federal government tyranny. If the federal government is tyrannical, then they'd have the support of a substantial part of the american people in that tyranny; and those people would have just as many guns.
|
Still arguing with people who get a raging boner fantasising over how they gonna kill the shit out of a burglar, hm? Who jerk off to the thought of "coming after the tyrannical government"?
Which is funny btw, because to me, a government deciding what you can and cannot do with your body is pretty tyrannic, innit? How about preventing people from marrying? Still no? How about trying to outlaw homosexuality? Rewriting history books? Still nothing? Right then.
Lets get to the "home defense" bullshit that constantly gets touted. As someone who actually understands weapons because they were my job for a long time (including everything up to 20mm autocannons and MILAN ATGMs), why on earth would you want an AR-15 for home defense? Not even getting into actual technicalities that a rifle, even carbine sized, is a disadvantage in CQC, 5.56mm NATO barely has any stopping power. This is factual and something even the military complains about. In a rush to counter arguments of their soldiers, US brass made this statement:
The US Army contended in 2003 that the lack of close range lethality of the 5.56×45mm NATO was more a matter of perception than fact. With controlled pairs and good shot placement to the head and chest, the target was usually defeated without issue. The majority of failures were the result of hitting the target in non-vital areas such as extremities. However, a minority of failures occurred in spite of multiple hits to the chest.
No shit. Multiple hits including head and chest shots usually killed the target. Of course, that's not considering that in a home defense situation you're not necessarily able to aim for multiple head and chest hits. Yeah, yeah, i know, all those flabby gunowners are experts in slicing the pie, can circumvent the unwieldiness of a carbine going through doors and around corners, and obviously have lethal hits instantly by hitting both eyes with a single bullet.
In realityland however, as someone who trained for years to shoot people, once i got actually shot at, there was little more to do than getting in cover and shoot back in the general direction of where the people sat that wanted to kill me. And that's not a lack of "professionalism", that's adrenaline and fear, despite training. You know, something most people advocating for free AR15s for everyone never even seen from afar.
I do not understand (actually i do, but alas) why someone would advocate an AR-15 as a home defense weapon. It's not. In fact, an AR-15 has not a single (fucking literally) upside for home defense, only downsides. The advantages of a rifle and 5.56 NATO don't come into play in that scenario. Not even remotely. You're left with no stopping power, in a too large weapon. The only reason to try and prevent AR-15s getting banned is because they look badass, tactical n shit. That's why home defense advocates often have silencers, all kinds of optics (and scopes!) etc on their ARs.
+ Show Spoiler +
Home defense. Clearly.
And, i mean.. Tyrannical government, yeah. So let me get this straight, because there's not many options here, and i'd like Danglars to point out which one is the correct scenario.
The evul government is doing some shit now. Like, banning twinkies. You absolutely have to rebel against the government now.
Here's the two options. Either the US military does its job and prevents you from doing so. Some kind of civil war, that you obviously will lose. Like, not even a question, or a "maybe if". If the US military doesn't join your fight, you're toast.
The other option: the military does join your side, then who the fuck would need or actually want some untrained dipshits with no military background, discipline or any redeeming feature to fight next to them?
See the problem here? You're jack shit (not you personal, but the general population). You don't get to overthrow a government with force, the military does. Or it doesn't, and there's nothing you can do about it.
At least have the balls to acknowledge that you want a rifle because they look badass, all tactical n shit. That'd be better (and way more honest) than pulling those stupid arguments out of where the sun doesn't shine. No one in their right mind takes those serious.
User was warned for this post.
|
On September 07 2018 11:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 10:48 JD.Cursed wrote:On September 07 2018 10:22 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 07 2018 10:01 JD.Cursed wrote:
Wow I really set fire to another thread.
First I wanna point out, that I called you Australian. Thats far less offensive than saying I know jackshit and calling me ignorant. Im actually trying real hard not to offend anyone so please try to do the same.
And I am going to disagree with your 2nd paragraph. Citizens do have the option to resist the government, but as whoever posted earlier, speech and law are far more effective than force. I got arrested for going bowling when I was 22, you believe that? That judge felt my words. But I was still arrested without ever having commit a crime. That seems tyrannical to me.
I'm not hiding behind anything. I dont own a gun. I dont want a gun. Having a gun causes far more problems than it solves. I am making this argument for Civil Rights and Freedom and all that noble crap. And boredom. And while the law can be argued as irrelevant or outdated, the spirit of that law is not. And never will be. you literally said you know nothing about australia other than what our flag looks like and that we are commonwealth. that qualifies as pretty much jackshit. i wasnt trying to offend, it was an observation based on your confession. your experience with arrest is nowhere near tyrannical. even if we for argument sake said it was, that kind of scale isnt what we're talking about when we discuss the 2nd amendment. besides, how did you solve that problem? you sure as hell didnt pull a gun out and point it at the judge did you your 3rd paragraph is something i could actually agree with. what i dont understand is how you can accept that the law could be irrelevant or outdated, but would choose not to change it despite it being such a massive reason why gun regulation hasnt come to pass I edited the post you quoted a lil bit there. What would you consider tyrannical? And what would you consider tyrannical enough to take up arms against? Those are two very different answers for me. I said it could be argued, not that I accept or agree. And I did also research into England's gun laws for a few min. Hunting rifles and shotguns are actually legal for ordinary citizens to own. Pistols were until the 1 and only school shooting in 1996. And it sounds good. A pistol's only real purpose is murder and suicide. And we'd still have our rifles for the great revolution of neo-fascist quasi dictatorship. Fair compromise, but only if they were taken from police as well. zlefin: I understand a little better now and that is an interesting point. my first counter is "Sic semper tyrannis!" Also I suppose that your right no complete revolution in a world power could be successful without a professional military, however have been wildly effective all over Africa and the Middle East. So instead of revolution call it Coup d'eTat first, please stick to your earlier pledge to respond to me, without other people's stuff getting in the way, then we can have a proper quotechain to refer back to. Also, please don't edit in answers to me if I wasn't the main recipient of a post. I don't like having to check back to the prior page just to see if you've responded to me by editing into another conversation. First, "sic semper tyrannis" is not an actual counter; amusing though it be in context, i'm trying to have a serious argument. and I'd rather not mix joke counters with actual counters. If you intend it to be an actual counter, please do it in a clear way, rather than a jokey and vague way. Second, are you aware of the extent to which the revolutionary war was only successful because other major powers (france in particular) intervened? Third, I think you misestimate what's actually occurred in africa and the mid east in reference to the actual thesis. They (they meaning personal arms again) have not been wildly effective all over africa and the middle east. (especially not at doing anything about tyranny, which is the subject in question). Successful revolutions are generally a result of either substantial support by a foreign power, OR revolutions done by a faction of the military (or other existing power players who have armed forces of their own). You should point to the specific examples you think demonstrate your point. Fourth, coup d'etat is irrelevant to the situation. Because those are not about personal arms of the citizenry at all. Fifth, even assuming the guns were significantly helpful in a conflict, there's still the question of whether they actually help vs tyranny. Tyrannical governments we're talking about aren't some mythical otherworldly force, in this context we're talking about federal government tyranny. If the federal government is tyrannical, then they'd have the support of a substantial part of the american people in that tyranny; and those people would have just as many guns.
Was trying not to double post.
1. Sic Semper Tyrannis! is the quote of John Wilkes Booth when he shot Lincoln. I believe it was his personal Derringer.
2. Yes I was, hence the earlier post when I supposed France may have supplied arms to the colonists.
3. Mozambique has the AK-47 on their flag as a symbol of their independence from Portugal in 1975. I dont know specifically any other revolutions that succeeded in Africa but Im sure there are more. Which reminds of the Mexican revolution from Spain, And ISIS was able to capture and hold large chunks of Iraq Syria and Libya but who knows what kind of support they were receiving from other nations. And let's not forget the Alamo, even though it wasnt quite a revolution, and also failed.
4. Still a change of government through violence.
5. Would they though? In 2013, Boston, a city of 650k, volunteered for marshal law.
|
On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote: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. 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? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest.
That statement is really fucking heartless.
The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small.
Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree?
What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings?
Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders.
|
5930 Posts
Mozambique has the AK-47 on their flag as a symbol of their independence from Portugal in 1975. I dont know specifically any other revolutions that succeeded in Africa but Im sure there are more. Which reminds of the Mexican revolution from Spain, And ISIS was able to capture and hold large chunks of Iraq Syria and Libya but who knows what kind of support they were receiving from other nations. And let's not forget the Alamo, even though it wasnt quite a revolution, and also failed.
Coup d'états in Africa have always been between "professional" military forces. The Central African Republic is a perfect example: you had the military overthrow the president, then you have the ex-president regain control with the help of the French military, then you have the ex-president lose control again because the local French security outfit backed his opponent.
The revolution in Mozambique succeed happened for the same reasons all post-war European powers lost their territories: an inability to control the far off colonies due to insufficient resources and domestic support. Even then, it wasn't an organic revolution as the US and Russia really wanted the old imperialist powers to die off so were willing to assist them. What ultimately ended fascist Portugal and allowed Mozambique to gain its independence was when the Portuguese military intervened, formed a military junta and kicked out Marcelo Caetano.
|
While I don't really like the "revolution" argument in general it almost always draws out equally ridiculous imaginings of how it would look.
Cuba is the example people arguing the "revolution" example are looking for. Regardless, small arms are the lifeblood of the guerrilla and are used to obtain larger arms/replenishing supplies from ambushing military forces in every case regardless of how much or little help is given to them by other nations.
Additionally the blending of friend, foe, and agnostic makes the type of retaliations most people point to as nullifying small arms completely infeasible.
This argument is definitely the worst one from both sides of the regulation debate imo.
|
On September 07 2018 12:20 m4ini wrote:
Here's the two options. Either the US military does its job and prevents you from doing so. Some kind of civil war, that you obviously will lose. Like, not even a question, or a "maybe if". If the US military doesn't join your fight, you're toast.
The other option: the military does join your side, then who the fuck would need or actually want some untrained dipshits with no military background, discipline or any redeeming feature to fight next to them?
See the problem here? You're jack shit (not you personal, but the general population). You don't get to overthrow a government with force, the military does. Or it doesn't, and there's nothing you can do about it.
At least have the balls to acknowledge that you want a rifle because they look badass, all tactical n shit. That'd be better (and way more honest) than pulling those stupid arguments out of where the sun doesn't shine. No one in their right mind takes those serious.
precisely this. i dont understand why danglars and anyone else who uses this argument or the self defense argument cant see how flawed it is. either they lack ability to apply logic, theyre deluded or theyre just using the argument as a guise for what they really want, which is that they just want to keep guns as toys.
although i still think that if the military were to join the publics' side, the government couldnt act tyrannical to begin with.
|
Okay Greenhorizons, i'll make a better argument against protection from the government then. The constitution was written in the late 18th century by, by our present standards, uneducated bigoted racists and sexists. Since then, it hasn't been changed because it was the will of the founding fathers. After 1945, with a defeated Germany, the States were the most powerful partner of a group of nations that were dictating or at least heavily influencing germanys next government form and constitution. Still, the german constitution does not guarante the german people the right to bear arms, neither for self defense, nor to protect them againsta resurgence of Nazism in germany. The French, that had just fought an guerilla war against an oppressing evil government, did not think giving the population weapons to defend would be a good idea either. And the British, whose greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandfathers had bled and died against american militias and should know how effective those small arms militias could be, did not want that provision in there either. Despite the perceived threat of Russian aggression against Germany.
If back then, american constitutional scholars did not believe the right to bear arms to defend against a tyrannical government was needed for the success of a federal democracy, why do people believe now that the 2nd amendment is anything more then a relic from the past where the US needed milita armies?
|
On September 07 2018 18:28 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay Greenhorizons, i'll make a better argument against protection from the government then. The constitution was written in the late 18th century by, by our present standards, uneducated bigoted racists and sexists. Since then, it hasn't been changed because it was the will of the founding fathers. After 1945, with a defeated Germany, the States were the most powerful partner of a group of nations that were dictating or at least heavily influencing germanys next government form and constitution. Still, the german constitution does not guarante the german people the right to bear arms, neither for self defense, nor to protect them againsta resurgence of Nazism in germany. The French, that had just fought an guerilla war against an oppressing evil government, did not think giving the population weapons to defend would be a good idea either. And the British, whose greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandfathers had bled and died against american militias and should know how effective those small arms militias could be, did not want that provision in there either. Despite the perceived threat of Russian aggression against Germany.
If back then, american constitutional scholars did not believe the right to bear arms to defend against a tyrannical government was needed for the success of a federal democracy, why do people believe now that the 2nd amendment is anything more then a relic from the past where the US needed milita armies?
I feel like this is all easier to imagine if instead of whatever most people are thinking, they imagine someone like Chavez (remember we elected Trump) was elected in the US. Think about the difference in something like nationalizing industry where there are no (or vastly less) civilian arms vs US as it is now.
I feel like that should make it more apparent to people?
|
On September 07 2018 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 18:28 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay Greenhorizons, i'll make a better argument against protection from the government then. The constitution was written in the late 18th century by, by our present standards, uneducated bigoted racists and sexists. Since then, it hasn't been changed because it was the will of the founding fathers. After 1945, with a defeated Germany, the States were the most powerful partner of a group of nations that were dictating or at least heavily influencing germanys next government form and constitution. Still, the german constitution does not guarante the german people the right to bear arms, neither for self defense, nor to protect them againsta resurgence of Nazism in germany. The French, that had just fought an guerilla war against an oppressing evil government, did not think giving the population weapons to defend would be a good idea either. And the British, whose greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandfathers had bled and died against american militias and should know how effective those small arms militias could be, did not want that provision in there either. Despite the perceived threat of Russian aggression against Germany.
If back then, american constitutional scholars did not believe the right to bear arms to defend against a tyrannical government was needed for the success of a federal democracy, why do people believe now that the 2nd amendment is anything more then a relic from the past where the US needed milita armies? I feel like this is all easier to imagine if instead of whatever most people are thinking, they imagine someone like Chavez (remember we elected Trump) was elected in the US. Think about the difference in something like nationalizing industry where there are no (or vastly less) civilian arms vs US as it is now. I feel like that should make it more apparent to people?
This is precisely the problem.
I'm not sure about the wisdom of encouraging people to take up arms against what they see as 'tyranny'.
In the wrong mind, a scathing article about Donald Trump is a form of tyranny.
|
On September 07 2018 19:42 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2018 18:28 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay Greenhorizons, i'll make a better argument against protection from the government then. The constitution was written in the late 18th century by, by our present standards, uneducated bigoted racists and sexists. Since then, it hasn't been changed because it was the will of the founding fathers. After 1945, with a defeated Germany, the States were the most powerful partner of a group of nations that were dictating or at least heavily influencing germanys next government form and constitution. Still, the german constitution does not guarante the german people the right to bear arms, neither for self defense, nor to protect them againsta resurgence of Nazism in germany. The French, that had just fought an guerilla war against an oppressing evil government, did not think giving the population weapons to defend would be a good idea either. And the British, whose greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandfathers had bled and died against american militias and should know how effective those small arms militias could be, did not want that provision in there either. Despite the perceived threat of Russian aggression against Germany.
If back then, american constitutional scholars did not believe the right to bear arms to defend against a tyrannical government was needed for the success of a federal democracy, why do people believe now that the 2nd amendment is anything more then a relic from the past where the US needed milita armies? I feel like this is all easier to imagine if instead of whatever most people are thinking, they imagine someone like Chavez (remember we elected Trump) was elected in the US. Think about the difference in something like nationalizing industry where there are no (or vastly less) civilian arms vs US as it is now. I feel like that should make it more apparent to people? This is precisely the problem. I'm not sure about the wisdom of encouraging people to take up arms against what they see as 'tyranny'. In the wrong mind, a scathing article about Donald Trump is a form of tyranny.
That's a completely different problem isn't it?
The situation you're looking at there is a fight between "government" and Trump/supporters in which case I don't think anyone is going to argue whether they have guns or not doesn't make a difference.
That the revolution/whatever you want to call it used small arms for a political agenda you oppose against a government you support is somewhat irrelevant to the point.
|
On September 07 2018 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 18:28 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay Greenhorizons, i'll make a better argument against protection from the government then. The constitution was written in the late 18th century by, by our present standards, uneducated bigoted racists and sexists. Since then, it hasn't been changed because it was the will of the founding fathers. After 1945, with a defeated Germany, the States were the most powerful partner of a group of nations that were dictating or at least heavily influencing germanys next government form and constitution. Still, the german constitution does not guarante the german people the right to bear arms, neither for self defense, nor to protect them againsta resurgence of Nazism in germany. The French, that had just fought an guerilla war against an oppressing evil government, did not think giving the population weapons to defend would be a good idea either. And the British, whose greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandfathers had bled and died against american militias and should know how effective those small arms militias could be, did not want that provision in there either. Despite the perceived threat of Russian aggression against Germany.
If back then, american constitutional scholars did not believe the right to bear arms to defend against a tyrannical government was needed for the success of a federal democracy, why do people believe now that the 2nd amendment is anything more then a relic from the past where the US needed milita armies? I feel like this is all easier to imagine if instead of whatever most people are thinking, they imagine someone like Chavez (remember we elected Trump) was elected in the US. Think about the difference in something like nationalizing industry where there are no (or vastly less) civilian arms vs US as it is now. I feel like that should make it more apparent to people?
Sorry, could you explain that line of thought more? What does Chavez vs Trump make more obvious? I suppose you mean Hugo Chavez, who was, as far as i know, a legitimate socialist democratic president and by no means tyrannical. I sincerely don't get what you mean with that post.
|
On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote: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. 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?
Citation needed.
I'm looking for statistics demonstrating that robbery is reduced in the US, with its awesome anti-robbery guns, vs.... say... Japan, which is practically draconian.
As far as I'm aware there's no evidence demonstrating that guns actually reduce crime in the least. Otherwise, why are some of the countries with the lowest crime stats the ones with the fewest guns and strongest restrictions (not the UK; Sweden, Japan, a few others)?
As for the earlier argument; no I'm not saying you are some sort of deep state agent. But you full-throatedly support the party that full-throatedly supports the corporate domination of your government. You hate the corps but love their agents? Sorry bud, you love the corps, as far as they're concerned. And that's just going off your lengthy posting history in the US Pol thread, not what you've said here.
On September 07 2018 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 19:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 07 2018 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2018 18:28 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay Greenhorizons, i'll make a better argument against protection from the government then. The constitution was written in the late 18th century by, by our present standards, uneducated bigoted racists and sexists. Since then, it hasn't been changed because it was the will of the founding fathers. After 1945, with a defeated Germany, the States were the most powerful partner of a group of nations that were dictating or at least heavily influencing germanys next government form and constitution. Still, the german constitution does not guarante the german people the right to bear arms, neither for self defense, nor to protect them againsta resurgence of Nazism in germany. The French, that had just fought an guerilla war against an oppressing evil government, did not think giving the population weapons to defend would be a good idea either. And the British, whose greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandfathers had bled and died against american militias and should know how effective those small arms militias could be, did not want that provision in there either. Despite the perceived threat of Russian aggression against Germany.
If back then, american constitutional scholars did not believe the right to bear arms to defend against a tyrannical government was needed for the success of a federal democracy, why do people believe now that the 2nd amendment is anything more then a relic from the past where the US needed milita armies? I feel like this is all easier to imagine if instead of whatever most people are thinking, they imagine someone like Chavez (remember we elected Trump) was elected in the US. Think about the difference in something like nationalizing industry where there are no (or vastly less) civilian arms vs US as it is now. I feel like that should make it more apparent to people? This is precisely the problem. I'm not sure about the wisdom of encouraging people to take up arms against what they see as 'tyranny'. In the wrong mind, a scathing article about Donald Trump is a form of tyranny. That's a completely different problem isn't it? The situation you're looking at there is a fight between "government" and Trump/supporters in which case I don't think anyone is going to argue whether they have guns or not doesn't make a difference. That the revolution/whatever you want to call it used small arms for a political agenda you oppose against a government you support is somewhat irrelevant to the point.
Is it, though?
To me the problem with the 'against tyranny' argument is the exact same problem as what you two are barneying about; people are fucking dumb.
I've lately been re-watching a lot of the 'cops gun down black guy' videos, and it's amazing how many of those situations come down to 'he's made the faintest movement, he might have a gun, MURDERDEATHKILLMURDERDEATHKILL'. In an environment where literally anyone can have a gun, those situations become inevitabilities (shunting aside racism issues for a moment), because just about anyone could be a lethal threat.
And going back to the anti tyranny argument, the problem is that if the tyranny comes, the people will support it. In droves. Because they always have at every single point in history when this has occurred. It doesn't need to be everyone, it just needs to be enough of everyone, plus the army.
That's the fantasy aspect; it's this idea that if these imaginary tyrants rise, the American people will link arms in one great brotherhood and cast them down!
But they won't. Because half of them will be on the sidelines cheering as 'the parasites' 'the leftists/rightists weakening our state' 'the foreigners taking our jobs' are brutally executed, while the other half are staring in horror and hoping it won't be them next.
|
On September 07 2018 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 19:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 07 2018 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2018 18:28 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay Greenhorizons, i'll make a better argument against protection from the government then. The constitution was written in the late 18th century by, by our present standards, uneducated bigoted racists and sexists. Since then, it hasn't been changed because it was the will of the founding fathers. After 1945, with a defeated Germany, the States were the most powerful partner of a group of nations that were dictating or at least heavily influencing germanys next government form and constitution. Still, the german constitution does not guarante the german people the right to bear arms, neither for self defense, nor to protect them againsta resurgence of Nazism in germany. The French, that had just fought an guerilla war against an oppressing evil government, did not think giving the population weapons to defend would be a good idea either. And the British, whose greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandfathers had bled and died against american militias and should know how effective those small arms militias could be, did not want that provision in there either. Despite the perceived threat of Russian aggression against Germany.
If back then, american constitutional scholars did not believe the right to bear arms to defend against a tyrannical government was needed for the success of a federal democracy, why do people believe now that the 2nd amendment is anything more then a relic from the past where the US needed milita armies? I feel like this is all easier to imagine if instead of whatever most people are thinking, they imagine someone like Chavez (remember we elected Trump) was elected in the US. Think about the difference in something like nationalizing industry where there are no (or vastly less) civilian arms vs US as it is now. I feel like that should make it more apparent to people? This is precisely the problem. I'm not sure about the wisdom of encouraging people to take up arms against what they see as 'tyranny'. In the wrong mind, a scathing article about Donald Trump is a form of tyranny. That's a completely different problem isn't it? The situation you're looking at there is a fight between "government" and Trump/supporters in which case I don't think anyone is going to argue whether they have guns or not doesn't make a difference. That the revolution/whatever you want to call it used small arms for a political agenda you oppose against a government you support is somewhat irrelevant to the point.
What I'm saying is that tyranny takes many forms to many people. The whole situation of gun ownership and gun use being intertwined with personal freedom and liberty from tyranny is nonsensical and dangerous. I don't have to remind you that both Obama and Trump have been described as tyrannical by their political opponents. Whatever your political agenda is, having the stakes ramped up to 'civil war' as soon as a political opponent is in power, or even the potential for that to happen, is a bad thing.
|
On September 07 2018 20:33 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2018 18:28 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay Greenhorizons, i'll make a better argument against protection from the government then. The constitution was written in the late 18th century by, by our present standards, uneducated bigoted racists and sexists. Since then, it hasn't been changed because it was the will of the founding fathers. After 1945, with a defeated Germany, the States were the most powerful partner of a group of nations that were dictating or at least heavily influencing germanys next government form and constitution. Still, the german constitution does not guarante the german people the right to bear arms, neither for self defense, nor to protect them againsta resurgence of Nazism in germany. The French, that had just fought an guerilla war against an oppressing evil government, did not think giving the population weapons to defend would be a good idea either. And the British, whose greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandfathers had bled and died against american militias and should know how effective those small arms militias could be, did not want that provision in there either. Despite the perceived threat of Russian aggression against Germany.
If back then, american constitutional scholars did not believe the right to bear arms to defend against a tyrannical government was needed for the success of a federal democracy, why do people believe now that the 2nd amendment is anything more then a relic from the past where the US needed milita armies? I feel like this is all easier to imagine if instead of whatever most people are thinking, they imagine someone like Chavez (remember we elected Trump) was elected in the US. Think about the difference in something like nationalizing industry where there are no (or vastly less) civilian arms vs US as it is now. I feel like that should make it more apparent to people? Sorry, could you explain that line of thought more? What does Chavez vs Trump make more obvious? I suppose you mean Hugo Chavez, who was, as far as i know, a legitimate socialist democratic president and by no means tyrannical. I sincerely don't get what you mean with that post.
Someone else saying that makes me happy but it's not important to my point.
I was trying to say that if we elected someone who wanted to nationalize the O&G industry private guns would be a critical part of calculating how or whether it could be done. It's not about the politics but how private citizens having guns isn't the non-factor people like to portray it as regarding opposition to government.
On September 07 2018 20:46 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2018 19:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 07 2018 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2018 18:28 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay Greenhorizons, i'll make a better argument against protection from the government then. The constitution was written in the late 18th century by, by our present standards, uneducated bigoted racists and sexists. Since then, it hasn't been changed because it was the will of the founding fathers. After 1945, with a defeated Germany, the States were the most powerful partner of a group of nations that were dictating or at least heavily influencing germanys next government form and constitution. Still, the german constitution does not guarante the german people the right to bear arms, neither for self defense, nor to protect them againsta resurgence of Nazism in germany. The French, that had just fought an guerilla war against an oppressing evil government, did not think giving the population weapons to defend would be a good idea either. And the British, whose greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandfathers had bled and died against american militias and should know how effective those small arms militias could be, did not want that provision in there either. Despite the perceived threat of Russian aggression against Germany.
If back then, american constitutional scholars did not believe the right to bear arms to defend against a tyrannical government was needed for the success of a federal democracy, why do people believe now that the 2nd amendment is anything more then a relic from the past where the US needed milita armies? I feel like this is all easier to imagine if instead of whatever most people are thinking, they imagine someone like Chavez (remember we elected Trump) was elected in the US. Think about the difference in something like nationalizing industry where there are no (or vastly less) civilian arms vs US as it is now. I feel like that should make it more apparent to people? This is precisely the problem. I'm not sure about the wisdom of encouraging people to take up arms against what they see as 'tyranny'. In the wrong mind, a scathing article about Donald Trump is a form of tyranny. That's a completely different problem isn't it? The situation you're looking at there is a fight between "government" and Trump/supporters in which case I don't think anyone is going to argue whether they have guns or not doesn't make a difference. That the revolution/whatever you want to call it used small arms for a political agenda you oppose against a government you support is somewhat irrelevant to the point. What I'm saying is that tyranny takes many forms to many people. The whole situation of gun ownership and gun use being intertwined with personal freedom and liberty from tyranny is nonsensical and dangerous. I don't have to remind you that both Obama and Trump have been described as tyrannical by their political opponents. Whatever your political agenda is, having the stakes ramped up to 'civil war' as soon as a political opponent is in power, or even the potential for that to happen, is a bad thing.
I wasn't making a value judgement (besides that this brings up bad arguments from both sides), I was making a point about having an armed populace and it's relation to government acting against those armed people.
|
|
|
On September 07 2018 20:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 20:33 Broetchenholer wrote:On September 07 2018 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2018 18:28 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay Greenhorizons, i'll make a better argument against protection from the government then. The constitution was written in the late 18th century by, by our present standards, uneducated bigoted racists and sexists. Since then, it hasn't been changed because it was the will of the founding fathers. After 1945, with a defeated Germany, the States were the most powerful partner of a group of nations that were dictating or at least heavily influencing germanys next government form and constitution. Still, the german constitution does not guarante the german people the right to bear arms, neither for self defense, nor to protect them againsta resurgence of Nazism in germany. The French, that had just fought an guerilla war against an oppressing evil government, did not think giving the population weapons to defend would be a good idea either. And the British, whose greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandfathers had bled and died against american militias and should know how effective those small arms militias could be, did not want that provision in there either. Despite the perceived threat of Russian aggression against Germany.
If back then, american constitutional scholars did not believe the right to bear arms to defend against a tyrannical government was needed for the success of a federal democracy, why do people believe now that the 2nd amendment is anything more then a relic from the past where the US needed milita armies? I feel like this is all easier to imagine if instead of whatever most people are thinking, they imagine someone like Chavez (remember we elected Trump) was elected in the US. Think about the difference in something like nationalizing industry where there are no (or vastly less) civilian arms vs US as it is now. I feel like that should make it more apparent to people? Sorry, could you explain that line of thought more? What does Chavez vs Trump make more obvious? I suppose you mean Hugo Chavez, who was, as far as i know, a legitimate socialist democratic president and by no means tyrannical. I sincerely don't get what you mean with that post. Someone else saying that makes me happy but it's not important to my point. I was trying to say that if we elected someone who wanted to nationalize the O&G industry private guns would be a critical part of calculating how or whether it could be done. It's not about the politics but how private citizens having guns isn't the non-factor people like to portray it as regarding opposition to government. Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 20:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 07 2018 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2018 19:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 07 2018 19:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2018 18:28 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay Greenhorizons, i'll make a better argument against protection from the government then. The constitution was written in the late 18th century by, by our present standards, uneducated bigoted racists and sexists. Since then, it hasn't been changed because it was the will of the founding fathers. After 1945, with a defeated Germany, the States were the most powerful partner of a group of nations that were dictating or at least heavily influencing germanys next government form and constitution. Still, the german constitution does not guarante the german people the right to bear arms, neither for self defense, nor to protect them againsta resurgence of Nazism in germany. The French, that had just fought an guerilla war against an oppressing evil government, did not think giving the population weapons to defend would be a good idea either. And the British, whose greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandfathers had bled and died against american militias and should know how effective those small arms militias could be, did not want that provision in there either. Despite the perceived threat of Russian aggression against Germany.
If back then, american constitutional scholars did not believe the right to bear arms to defend against a tyrannical government was needed for the success of a federal democracy, why do people believe now that the 2nd amendment is anything more then a relic from the past where the US needed milita armies? I feel like this is all easier to imagine if instead of whatever most people are thinking, they imagine someone like Chavez (remember we elected Trump) was elected in the US. Think about the difference in something like nationalizing industry where there are no (or vastly less) civilian arms vs US as it is now. I feel like that should make it more apparent to people? This is precisely the problem. I'm not sure about the wisdom of encouraging people to take up arms against what they see as 'tyranny'. In the wrong mind, a scathing article about Donald Trump is a form of tyranny. That's a completely different problem isn't it? The situation you're looking at there is a fight between "government" and Trump/supporters in which case I don't think anyone is going to argue whether they have guns or not doesn't make a difference. That the revolution/whatever you want to call it used small arms for a political agenda you oppose against a government you support is somewhat irrelevant to the point. What I'm saying is that tyranny takes many forms to many people. The whole situation of gun ownership and gun use being intertwined with personal freedom and liberty from tyranny is nonsensical and dangerous. I don't have to remind you that both Obama and Trump have been described as tyrannical by their political opponents. Whatever your political agenda is, having the stakes ramped up to 'civil war' as soon as a political opponent is in power, or even the potential for that to happen, is a bad thing. I wasn't making a value judgement (besides that this brings up bad arguments from both sides), I was making a point about having an armed populace and it's relation to government acting against those armed people.
OK I get where you are coming from now. Its a fair point, somewhat understated I think. The presence of an armed population changes things drastically in their relationship to their government. The number of police shootings of unarmed/innocent civilians in the US confirms this. Having an armed populace certainly would make the government think twice about some actions, but it also raises the stakes of any brush with law enforcement to a potential to a life/death encounter.
I clearly am making value judgements here. I guess its all the gun debate comes down to really (I've basically called a truce with danglars in this thread because of this - the whole debate is about whether you place higher value on public safety or personal freedom).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://cdn3.bigcommerce.com/s-k0rs13/products/76/images/269/Armalite_AR15_DEF15F_18__64579.1439601956.1280.1280.JPG?c=2)
