|
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. |
As a German with some American relatives, I made the experience that the average German and the average US-American couldn't have more different views of guns. We Germans associate military and everything related very negatively, since we lost the last 2 wars and were strongly brought up in the belief that it's better to look for a peaceful solution. Add to that the strongly negatively associated Nazi past and it makes sense why Germans regard weapon ownership as bs.
The US however is the current militarist superpower and as such the populace is on average much more leaning to typical traits of the supreme power. I.e. strong nationalism, idolization of military matters and belief in self-reliance (compare to Rome, Britain during colonization, WW1 Germany). As such guns, the army and the idea of self-defense are much more ingrained in their culture. Add to that that the USA still has leftovers of the time of colonization, i.e. the above mentioned self-reliance, independent and empowered law enforcement and the mentioned gun rights and the contrast couldn't be more crass.
Obviously the above are generalizations, there are nowadays a lot of US-citizens who regard gun-rights critically and some Germans who want the gun rights of the US, but the average will still be very different.
Personally I think the time in which a populace can take down a government when army and law enforcement are loyal to the government are gone and I see zero reason why anyone should be able to purchase a rifle, especially an assault rifle. It's a much too efficient killing tool to be put into the hands of a possible psycho. But I'm German.
|
On March 25 2019 17:16 Simberto wrote:
That is the basic difference in view.
Most people in europe see guns as a privilege.
Gun-rights people in the US see guns as a right.
The difference is that it is completely reasonable to add some requirements to privileges, while it indeed seems repressive to add requirements to rights.
I personally think that it is utterly weird that guns should be seen a human right, while lots of other things at least as useful, like cars or bikes or guitars, are not. I am sure Danglars will explain at some point why that is totally reasonable.
Human right is a mushy term, since so many of you Europeans use it to set goals for society. I’m interested in rights that set useful boundaries on my governments tyrannical leanings.
They aren’t coming for my cars and bikes and guitars right now. They’re praising NZ’s confiscation laws passed rapidly after a mass shooting. Semi auto rifles and detachable magazines are in the crosshairs. It’s useful to have the second amendment in the Constitution (maybe you need to reread, but it records my keeping and bearing arms as a literal right as a citizen) to guarantee it. And if people come for my car because it’s a pollutant and want to require me to use public buses and lightrail, maybe I’ll start framing car ownership and use the same way.
But since I’ve explained this many times in the past, about the right of self defense and future protection of tyranny, the problem has never been that you need someone to explain it to you. The problem is that you dont like the explanation. Likewise, the problem with things like gun registries and effective bans on magazine-chápale rifles is that your explanations are unconvincing. I would absolutely suggest you spend quality time on the last hundred or so pages of this thread and take notes if you need repetition in the future.
|
|
|
I don't think in today's world any western tyrant can rise to power without support of a large part of a country's population. If such a thing happens in the US it won't happen overnight but more like in the frog-in-hot-water example, with certain people winning elections, gradual changes to legislation and lots of propaganda and finger-pointing at supposed "enemies" of the state. In such a case the people willing to take up arms against a tyrant may find out that they're a minority without any support from the population, making any kind or resistance difficult to enact, if not completely futile.
|
Regardless of how this tyrant may or may not come to power, your gun is not going to help you fight against them. they have tanks, drones, airplanes, bombs, etc. This argument is Bull Fucking Shit.
|
On March 25 2019 23:33 PoulsenB wrote:
I don't think in today's world any western tyrant can rise to power without support of a large part of a country's population. If such a thing happens in the US it won't happen overnight but more like in the frog-in-hot-water example, with certain people winning elections, gradual changes to legislation and lots of propaganda and finger-pointing at supposed "enemies" of the state. In such a case the people willing to take up arms against a tyrant may find out that they're a minority without any support from the population, making any kind or resistance difficult to enact, if not completely futile.
History has shown an armed population will not deter an oppressive government that has a firm grasp of power.
|
On March 25 2019 23:37 Aveng3r wrote:
Regardless of how this tyrant may or may not come to power, your gun is not going to help you fight against them. they have tanks, drones, airplanes, bombs, etc. This argument is Bull Fucking Shit.
The argument is actually very clever because it means that any government that enacts legislation to take away your guns automatically becomes (according to this line of thought) the very tyranny that you need guns to defend yourself against.
|
On March 25 2019 23:33 PoulsenB wrote:
I don't think in today's world any western tyrant can rise to power without support of a large part of a country's population. If such a thing happens in the US it won't happen overnight but more like in the frog-in-hot-water example, with certain people winning elections, gradual changes to legislation and lots of propaganda and finger-pointing at supposed "enemies" of the state. In such a case the people willing to take up arms against a tyrant may find out that they're a minority without any support from the population, making any kind or resistance difficult to enact, if not completely futile.
Was the case in f.e. the French revolution, a fairly minor part of the population that rises up can still take down the government if it happens to be large enough to take the capital and the military stays still or reacts too slowly. Although they need to be careful of a counter-revolution.
The problem with the argument is that "the military is idling/siding with the rebellion" is the only relevant case, armed civilians don't win against drones, tanks and jets, unless heavily supported by other nations they can't take down a government supported by the military.
|
On March 25 2019 23:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 23:33 PoulsenB wrote:
I don't think in today's world any western tyrant can rise to power without support of a large part of a country's population. If such a thing happens in the US it won't happen overnight but more like in the frog-in-hot-water example, with certain people winning elections, gradual changes to legislation and lots of propaganda and finger-pointing at supposed "enemies" of the state. In such a case the people willing to take up arms against a tyrant may find out that they're a minority without any support from the population, making any kind or resistance difficult to enact, if not completely futile. History has shown an armed population will not deter an oppressive government that has a firm grasp of power.
More importantly, any tyrant that has a chance of seizing power in the US in today's context will be a rightwing tyrant and he will seize power with the support of the gun-loving crowd, not in spite of it.
|
On March 26 2019 00:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 23:39 Plansix wrote:On March 25 2019 23:33 PoulsenB wrote:
I don't think in today's world any western tyrant can rise to power without support of a large part of a country's population. If such a thing happens in the US it won't happen overnight but more like in the frog-in-hot-water example, with certain people winning elections, gradual changes to legislation and lots of propaganda and finger-pointing at supposed "enemies" of the state. In such a case the people willing to take up arms against a tyrant may find out that they're a minority without any support from the population, making any kind or resistance difficult to enact, if not completely futile. History has shown an armed population will not deter an oppressive government that has a firm grasp of power. More importantly, any tyrant that has a chance of seizing power in the US in today's context will be a rightwing tyrant and he will seize power with the support of the gun-loving crowd, not in spite of it.
I agree. And even if that wasn’t true for the US, the 20th century has shown that by the time the population needs those guns they are already screwed. Guns will not save you any more that law and order will.
|
Every time I read something like this I'm reminded of the cost of 2nd amendment rights in America.
In a matter of a couple days 2 parkland students commit suicide, 1 father of a child murdered at sandy hook.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/us/sandy-hook-victim-father-jeremy-richman-suicide/index.html
While things like this happen very regularly in our country, I fail to see the counter-balancing positive benefits of gun civilian gun ownership. In other words, where are the examples of self-defense that out weigh the damage cause by guns?
Can people really continue to support something that is killing children and adults more frequently than saving them?
|
Those who still argue guns are needed to fight against tyranny are stuck in the past, like the 2nd amendment. Might want to get with the times.
|
On March 26 2019 02:57 riotjune wrote:
Those who still argue guns are needed to fight against tyranny are stuck in the past, like the 2nd amendment. Might want to get with the times.
Given that your founding principals were established by infallible demigods of nation building. That seems like a very tough sell. Try again after another 5000 mass shootings + Show Spoiler +(only to hear the same argument again)
|
the problem with outlawing guns is simple:
when you outlaw a thing - and you tell all civilians "you can't have this thing because it is too dangerous"
but then at THE SAME TIME you say "but we will have these special groups of people such as police or military, and they CAN own the dangerous thing", then that's unfair and it creates a dangerous balance of power.
so the question is, where do you draw the line, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
police have tazers, can people have tazers? yes generally, they aren't dangerous enough.
can people have some kind of large bomb? well, like all weapons, we would prefer that the military didn't have bombs, that no one had bombs at all - but we can't really have that situation because we can't get the entire world to have bombs. so we have to look at it practically and just weigh whether or not the risk outweighs the freedom, and I think most people agree - bombs are too dangerous for normal civilians to have.
So then we look in the middle, which is something like guns. Is this freedom more important than the risk of having guns in society.
I think the typical person that is against a lot of the gun restriction stuff has a different conception/valuing of freedom than people who are for a lot of gun restriction and/or banning. Personally, I am kind of in the middle, since we can't make EVERYONE stop using/possessing guns. If we could do that, I would be for the banning of all weapons(the type that exist specifically to be weapons) in general, unless there was a very strong argument for the possession of that weapon.
|
|
|
Canada11496 Posts
On March 25 2019 23:37 Aveng3r wrote:
Regardless of how this tyrant may or may not come to power, your gun is not going to help you fight against them. they have tanks, drones, airplanes, bombs, etc. This argument is Bull Fucking Shit.
I used to think so. I don't think anymore. A lot of the people you'd be relying on to shoot their own populace, are more likely to defect and become irregulars than not. One of the things that keeps a democratic republic, democratic is if the military still believes in it (rather than thinking it's time to step in for a military Junta.) As far as I can tell, the anti-tyranny mentality is still very strong in the US and most importantly, in the military. And the venn diagram of obstinate gun owners, military, and cops that know how to shoot has a pretty good overlap. Finding military that would drop bombs on their home country and not defect, would be harder.
If you imagine only 20-30% of Americans are actually gun owners, and then 90% of those go along peacefully with a tyrannical takeover, that still leaves 6.5 M insurgents compared to 1.3 Million military, 800,000 in reserves (supposing they back the tyranny- big if.) Even if 99% of gun owners go peacefully, it's 650K insurgents. I think in Iraq, there's wasn't much more than 20K insurgents in space smaller than Texas.
The problem then becomes hardly any of the military bases are set up in safe zones. . .towns have been built up around them. And your tyrannical regime members are scattered throughout cities that are now hostile to you kicking down their door. Logistics becomes a nightmare. Tanks need fuel, ammo, and repairs. Crews need food, water, and sleep- and occasionally get out of the tank for bodily functions. And tanks don't protect politicians that give stupid orders.
Rifles would work perfectly fine for harassing the garrison, support, and administration. Parked planes are very vulnerable to ground attacks- including support personnel, engineers and security (supposing they don't just switch sides and raid the armoury).
And once a tank element is eliminated, it's no longer guns vs tanks, but tanks vs tanks (at some point- still easier to go after soft targets, rather than go head to head.) Blow up bridges and water supplies to the big cities supporting the dictatorship and see how quickly you can shut down modern interdependent cities with 3-5 days worth of food in their grocery stores.
I (now) think there's a lot that small arms can do if the US turned on its own people.
|
a military Juanita
I think this is an improvement over a military junta.
I used to think so. I don't think anymore. A lot of the people you'd be relying on to shoot their own populace, are more likely to defect and become irregulars than not. One of the things that keeps a democratic republic, democratic is if the military still believes in it (rather than thinking it's time to step in for a military Juanita.) As far as I can tell, the anti-tyranny mentality is still very strong in the US and most importantly, in the military. And the venn diagram of obstinate gun owners, military, and cops that know how to shoot has a pretty good overlap. Finding military that would drop bombs on their home country and not defect, would be harder.
Generally true. + Show Spoiler +Even way back in the day, there were loyalists siding with the British Empire when they arguably turned tyrannical. Some even penned a Declaration of Dependence. They didn't win the day then either
|
|
|
It's rather strange. In all relatively developed countries in the modern age which has successful revolutions, fighting tyranny, changing from dictatorships to democracies; in Taiwan, in South Korea, in India, half of Eastern Europe, it was done by peaceful protest, it was all done without guns.
Meanwhile in USA, when the president is acting out 40% of the way to facism, those who loudest proclaim to be guarding against tyranny with their civilian guns are appearing to be cheering him along all the way. In USA it wasn't civilian guns that ended segregation, to was the will of the populace. The mythical scenario of the military shooting civilians does not exist. For when the military is willing to shoot civilians en masse, tyranny has already occured.
|
On March 26 2019 05:41 travis wrote:
the problem with outlawing guns is simple:
when you outlaw a thing - and you tell all civilians "you can't have this thing because it is too dangerous"
but then at THE SAME TIME you say "but we will have these special groups of people such as police or military, and they CAN own the dangerous thing", then that's unfair and it creates a dangerous balance of power.
so the question is, where do you draw the line, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
police have tazers, can people have tazers? yes generally, they aren't dangerous enough.
can people have some kind of large bomb? well, like all weapons, we would prefer that the military didn't have bombs, that no one had bombs at all - but we can't really have that situation because we can't get the entire world to have bombs. so we have to look at it practically and just weigh whether or not the risk outweighs the freedom, and I think most people agree - bombs are too dangerous for normal civilians to have.
So then we look in the middle, which is something like guns. Is this freedom more important than the risk of having guns in society.
I think the typical person that is against a lot of the gun restriction stuff has a different conception/valuing of freedom than people who are for a lot of gun restriction and/or banning. Personally, I am kind of in the middle, since we can't make EVERYONE stop using/possessing guns. If we could do that, I would be for the banning of all weapons(the type that exist specifically to be weapons) in general, unless there was a very strong argument for the possession of that weapon.
I understand, that in US you have the 2nd amendment, which is one of the most popular ones. And iirc it came to be in the constitution, because your founding fathers thought it necessary that the general populous to possess the means to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical and refuses to concede power. In the 18th century i guess it seemed prudent to guarantee the absolute right for local militias to organize and arm themselves, since the state-of-the-art weapon was something along the lines of a bayonet, and armies had some cannons as well, mostly for smoke and intimidating noises than for actual AOE clear. So a militia armed with muskets could give serious trouble to a troop of state soldiers armed with bayonets and such.
In the 21st century a violent civic coup attempt, or a popular armed uprising of the people vs the government of the US is absolutely ridiculous idea, no matter how many legally purchasable automatic / assualt weapons you buy, your local militia wouldnt stand the slightest chance against any real attempt of the US army to beat it down. You'd have to face fighting helicopters, and the physical condition and aptitude of your regular Joe vs your regular US army corps member is somewhat steeper than it was in the 18th century.
So by that logic, the where do you draw the line question, at least for me as an outside observer, is pretty clear. You draw the line where you can use that weapon for simple self-defense and nothing else. Which is basically a handgun or single/double barrel gun. Anything with higher fire power than that can be used for one of the following things>
1. show off
2. feel empowered
3. collection
4. mass murder
Then again, im not very strongly invested in the issue one way or another (US gun laws that is), i just follow it sometimes since it's always so popular on social media.
As for my country, you can get guns and ammo and a permit to use them, it's not super easy, you have to undergo some psych tests and such, but doable. Once you have that, you can have your gun with you in your home, and whatever.
Carrying weapons out in the open? using public transportation, entering public buildings with them? Forget it. Such permits do exist i believe, they are almost impossible to obtain, i certainly dont know anyone who does.
Overwhelming majority of police officers are not carrying guns on regular duty, and those who do are discouraged from using them. Constabulary officers and such dont carry at all.
I think it's a pretty good system, but again, i'm not really invested in exporting it.
On a final note, i dont think american guncontrol reform is gonna happen anytime soon. At this point it has nothing to do with self-defense or civic freedoms. As i see it from a distance, it became a cultural / national pride sort of thing, and it's really hard to beat that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
