|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
|
|
On May 20 2019 11:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2019 08:52 ShambhalaWar wrote:Idk that America would have the money for a buyback... we have literally millions more guns in the street than our total population... about 6 million more if I remember the numbers correctly. Even if the 250 million of the guns were bought back for 5$ each, we would add over 1 trillion to the debt, and there would still be 6 million more out there. Though I still think it is a very good idea. Plus: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/19/us/alabama-high-school-graduation-party-shooting/index.htmlMore dead and mangled American children, I still expect gun advocates to do... absolutely 200-500%% less than people who don't have guns will do about it. 250m * $5 = $1,250m = $1.25b = $0.00125t
I meant billion 
Well, I actually I meant trillion... I'm that bad at math... truly (and sadly).
But that is actually good news! Much cheaper buy back then for us all :D
|
On May 20 2019 11:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2019 11:45 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is wacky to think that some how a small firearm is going to get you less exploited by the government. Even stranger then that with out the guns criminals are going to roving around invading the homes. I also find it shocking that you would be for a revolution and not just let what happens, happen.
It will not solve all the problems or even most. But if it gets unwanted guns off the streets and saves a few lives and millions in medical costs why not? Heck gun manufactures might even be on board since they could sell more new ones if people change their minds. Small arms (whether used or not) have been instrumental in near every resistance and revolution, it's reasonable to presume that would remain true in our case. This is even true in the realm of fantasy and fiction, from endgame, to GoT, to The Matrix. You can't even pretend a revolution without basic small arms (of the period) be it future, present, or past. You shouldn't be shocked. I provided some reasons "why not" but the more traditional explanation would be it's not worth the political capital given the circumstances and cost-benefit.
I'm pretty sure GOT used dragons and inc**t.
But I think you're right, if it was true in the matrix it's likely true real life.
|
On May 20 2019 12:37 JimmiC wrote:
No peaceful revolution was won with small arms. What a ridiculous thing to say.
Which ones are you thinking of where small arms weren't instrumental? Keep in mind the post you responded to included when they aren't used...
You would be far wiser in investing in protections to keep your government from turning authoratarian, rising up and revolution sound exciting and noble but they actually mean tons of death destruction on massive scales. The trap of peace privilege.
Revolution isn't desirable, it's becoming increasingly necessary to stave off mass extinction, pretending like I'm trying to turn it into something more noble than necessary is completely put on by you and not reflected in my posts at all.
"Peace privilege" is thinking US marines are "heroes", not recognizing the impending threat of fascism, the military industrial complex, perpetual conflict, and climate change.
On May 20 2019 14:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2019 11:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 11:45 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is wacky to think that some how a small firearm is going to get you less exploited by the government. Even stranger then that with out the guns criminals are going to roving around invading the homes. I also find it shocking that you would be for a revolution and not just let what happens, happen.
It will not solve all the problems or even most. But if it gets unwanted guns off the streets and saves a few lives and millions in medical costs why not? Heck gun manufactures might even be on board since they could sell more new ones if people change their minds. Small arms (whether used or not) have been instrumental in near every resistance and revolution, it's reasonable to presume that would remain true in our case. This is even true in the realm of fantasy and fiction, from endgame, to GoT, to The Matrix. You can't even pretend a revolution without basic small arms (of the period) be it future, present, or past. You shouldn't be shocked. I provided some reasons "why not" but the more traditional explanation would be it's not worth the political capital given the circumstances and cost-benefit. I'm pretty sure GOT used dragons and inc**t. But I think you're right, if it was true in the matrix it's likely true real life.
lol my point was that you can't even make a convincing fictional story about revolution without small arms, not that the matrix or GoT is real life...
|
On May 14 2019 17:30 ahswtini wrote:Hey Velr, you'll be voting NEIN on the 19th May, right? 
I voted yes (stricter rules).
Not because i care much or see a real necessity for it, but imho its not worth the trouble with the EU/Schengen if we don't do it.
So, this is done:
Switzerland voted yes to adopt european gun laws with 63.7%. It was a very unexciting and calm vote with a really low participation (low 4X%).
Btw:
lol my point was that you can't even make a convincing fictional story about revolution without small arms, not that the matrix or GoT is real life...
Ghandi?
If your in a situation that your revolution uses "small" arms, well... Get ready to be rolled over by tanks because your now officially a terrorist.
|
On May 20 2019 17:54 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 17:30 ahswtini wrote:Hey Velr, you'll be voting NEIN on the 19th May, right? Show nested quote +
I voted yes (stricter rules).
Not because i care much or see a real necessity for it, but imho its not worth the trouble with the EU/Schengen if we don't do it.
So, this is done: Switzerland voted yes to adopt european gun laws with 63.7%. It was a very unexciting and calm vote with a really low participation (low 4X%). Btw: Show nested quote +
lol my point was that you can't even make a convincing fictional story about revolution without small arms, not that the matrix or GoT is real life...
Ghandi? If your in a situation that your revolution uses "small" arms, well... Get ready to be rolled over by tanks because your now officially a terrorist.
I'm not sure what "Ghandi" means here? India's revolutionaries definitely had small arms/bombs and used guns (not just had them). Bina Das, Udham Singh, anyone?
I know people like dumping on revolution and the fundamental necessity of basic arms (whether used or not) but taking the position yall are means we're literally doomed.
|
|
|
On May 20 2019 23:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2019 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 12:37 JimmiC wrote:
No peaceful revolution was won with small arms. What a ridiculous thing to say. Which ones are you thinking of where small arms weren't instrumental? Keep in mind the post you responded to included when they aren't used... You would be far wiser in investing in protections to keep your government from turning authoratarian, rising up and revolution sound exciting and noble but they actually mean tons of death destruction on massive scales. The trap of peace privilege. Revolution isn't desirable, it's becoming increasingly necessary to stave off mass extinction, pretending like I'm trying to turn it into something more noble than necessary is completely put on by you and not reflected in my posts at all. "Peace privilege" is thinking US marines are "heroes", not recognizing the impending threat of fascism, the military industrial complex, perpetual conflict, and climate change. On May 20 2019 14:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 20 2019 11:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 11:45 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is wacky to think that some how a small firearm is going to get you less exploited by the government. Even stranger then that with out the guns criminals are going to roving around invading the homes. I also find it shocking that you would be for a revolution and not just let what happens, happen.
It will not solve all the problems or even most. But if it gets unwanted guns off the streets and saves a few lives and millions in medical costs why not? Heck gun manufactures might even be on board since they could sell more new ones if people change their minds. Small arms (whether used or not) have been instrumental in near every resistance and revolution, it's reasonable to presume that would remain true in our case. This is even true in the realm of fantasy and fiction, from endgame, to GoT, to The Matrix. You can't even pretend a revolution without basic small arms (of the period) be it future, present, or past. You shouldn't be shocked. I provided some reasons "why not" but the more traditional explanation would be it's not worth the political capital given the circumstances and cost-benefit. I'm pretty sure GOT used dragons and inc**t. But I think you're right, if it was true in the matrix it's likely true real life. lol my point was that you can't even make a convincing fictional story about revolution without small arms, not that the matrix or GoT is real life... No peace privilege as I used it is about people who have zero understanding of the actual costs of war or violent revolution. And they can be far right, middle or even Starbucks communists. Right now Venezuela is attempting revolution with out small arms. While there was much violence in the USSR eventually it was political. I think you will very much struggle to find a peaceful revolution that required small arms. Also, it is strange for you to be on the side of the corporation's, because the guns = freedom crazy marketimg campaign that worked on so many, I would not have guessed would work on you. Since you dont care about peoples freedom as long as the leaders identify as "left".
Between the two of us I think I'm far more familiar with the actual cost of resistance.
Without the limiter of "peaceful" you've failed to provide any example of revolutions that didn't.
The point is demonstrate that the argument constantly referenced about the futility of small arms isn't substantiated with any historical or contemporary support, just name calling and random unsupported allegations like:
you dont care about peoples freedom as long as the leaders identify as "left"
and
it is strange for you to be on the side of the corporation's, because the guns = freedom crazy marketimg campaign that worked on so many, I would not have guessed would work on you.
which are, frankly, nonsensical.
|
|
|
Thanks for this post.
A "revolution", even one whiteout arms, would most likely make life much, unfathombly much harder for the average citizen.
One with Arms? Well, now your talking thousands++ of dead people on top of it.
|
On May 21 2019 01:44 Velr wrote:
Thanks for this post.
A "revolution", even one whiteout arms, would most likely make life much, unfathombly much harder for the average citizen.
One with Arms? Well, now your talking thousands++ of dead people on top of it.
The point that doesn't seem to be registering is that the alternative isn't "no dead people" it's the threat of extinction of humanity as a species and countless other species.
Additionally, that revolutions can be and often are bloody isn't an argument against the necessity of small arms, but for it.
|
Ok, that makes it even dumber. To reconsider our energy structure we need stability and people actually wanting (voting!) it.
Your solutions have a very high chance of making sruff worse. Shortterm for sure, longterm maybe.
|
|
|
On May 21 2019 02:17 Velr wrote:
Ok, that makes it even dumber. To reconsider our energy structure we need stability and people actually wanting (voting!) it.
Your solutions have a very high chance of making sruff worse. Shortterm for sure, longterm maybe.
2016 was Hillary vs Trump and the country ended up with Trump, you can be as down as you want on revolution but the fact of the matter is that even with Bernie and a Democratic wave (far from guaranteed to even do this good) the US is going to continue down a path of climate catastrophe (and drag the rest of the world/species down with us btw).
Call revolution dumb if you must, but the position you're arguing leads us to ecological collapse and likely extinction. I don't mind people taking Kwarks position of "we're f'd, I'm not going to be the first to suffer", but this position of "My idea is leading to extinction, but your solution is dumb, try democracy dummy" is laughable (other than the whole, going to lead to extinction part).
On May 21 2019 03:15 JimmiC wrote:
Please explain two things to me and then we will know where to go to.
How does your small arms revolution work? Like how do they defeat the fascists rules the US? Like to they go after the means of production? Take out communications? Go for the power? How long do you think it takes?
Secondly other then posting the world is doomed on a message board. What real life activities are you personally doing to attempt to avert it? Also, how are you influencing those around you and what is your social circle of influence look like?
No thank you.
|
|
|
Show nested quote +On May 20 2019 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 12:37 JimmiC wrote:
No peaceful revolution was won with small arms. What a ridiculous thing to say. Which ones are you thinking of where small arms weren't instrumental? Keep in mind the post you responded to included when they aren't used... You would be far wiser in investing in protections to keep your government from turning authoratarian, rising up and revolution sound exciting and noble but they actually mean tons of death destruction on massive scales. The trap of peace privilege. Revolution isn't desirable, it's becoming increasingly necessary to stave off mass extinction, pretending like I'm trying to turn it into something more noble than necessary is completely put on by you and not reflected in my posts at all. "Peace privilege" is thinking US marines are "heroes", not recognizing the impending threat of fascism, the military industrial complex, perpetual conflict, and climate change. On May 20 2019 14:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 20 2019 11:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 11:45 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is wacky to think that some how a small firearm is going to get you less exploited by the government. Even stranger then that with out the guns criminals are going to roving around invading the homes. I also find it shocking that you would be for a revolution and not just let what happens, happen.
It will not solve all the problems or even most. But if it gets unwanted guns off the streets and saves a few lives and millions in medical costs why not? Heck gun manufactures might even be on board since they could sell more new ones if people change their minds. Small arms (whether used or not) have been instrumental in near every resistance and revolution, it's reasonable to presume that would remain true in our case. This is even true in the realm of fantasy and fiction, from endgame, to GoT, to The Matrix. You can't even pretend a revolution without basic small arms (of the period) be it future, present, or past. You shouldn't be shocked. I provided some reasons "why not" but the more traditional explanation would be it's not worth the political capital given the circumstances and cost-benefit. I'm pretty sure GOT used dragons and inc**t. But I think you're right, if it was true in the matrix it's likely true real life. lol my point was that you can't even make a convincing fictional story about revolution without small arms, not that the matrix or GoT is real life...
Why try to draw a comparison to real life with these examples? Both of those examples have no bearing on real life, they don't in any way bolster the point you are trying to make.
The difference between any old example of revolution to any modern day one is that technology tilts the scales of power so much, I question whether any revolution could occur in the modern day.
Even if the populous decided they would never stop fighting the power, people with power likely have enough power to wipe out the entire population and force a "reset." At that point there wouldn't be anything to rule, but if you have someone crazy enough in power they might (and my bigger point, could) effectively create a stalemate in which both sides completely lose.
And I can't see it mattering much how many small arms there are.
|
On May 23 2019 05:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2019 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 12:37 JimmiC wrote:
No peaceful revolution was won with small arms. What a ridiculous thing to say. Which ones are you thinking of where small arms weren't instrumental? Keep in mind the post you responded to included when they aren't used... You would be far wiser in investing in protections to keep your government from turning authoratarian, rising up and revolution sound exciting and noble but they actually mean tons of death destruction on massive scales. The trap of peace privilege. Revolution isn't desirable, it's becoming increasingly necessary to stave off mass extinction, pretending like I'm trying to turn it into something more noble than necessary is completely put on by you and not reflected in my posts at all. "Peace privilege" is thinking US marines are "heroes", not recognizing the impending threat of fascism, the military industrial complex, perpetual conflict, and climate change. On May 20 2019 14:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 20 2019 11:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 11:45 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is wacky to think that some how a small firearm is going to get you less exploited by the government. Even stranger then that with out the guns criminals are going to roving around invading the homes. I also find it shocking that you would be for a revolution and not just let what happens, happen.
It will not solve all the problems or even most. But if it gets unwanted guns off the streets and saves a few lives and millions in medical costs why not? Heck gun manufactures might even be on board since they could sell more new ones if people change their minds. Small arms (whether used or not) have been instrumental in near every resistance and revolution, it's reasonable to presume that would remain true in our case. This is even true in the realm of fantasy and fiction, from endgame, to GoT, to The Matrix. You can't even pretend a revolution without basic small arms (of the period) be it future, present, or past. You shouldn't be shocked. I provided some reasons "why not" but the more traditional explanation would be it's not worth the political capital given the circumstances and cost-benefit. I'm pretty sure GOT used dragons and inc**t. But I think you're right, if it was true in the matrix it's likely true real life. lol my point was that you can't even make a convincing fictional story about revolution without small arms, not that the matrix or GoT is real life... Why try to draw a comparison to real life with these examples? Both of those examples have no bearing on real life, they don't in any way bolster the point you are trying to make. The difference between any old example of revolution to any modern day one is that technology tilts the scales of power so much, I question whether any revolution could occur in the modern day. Even if the populous decided they would never stop fighting the power, people with power likely have enough power to wipe out the entire population and force a "reset." At that point there wouldn't be anything to rule, but if you have someone crazy enough in power they might (and my bigger point, could) effectively create a stalemate in which both sides completely lose. And I can't see it mattering much how many small arms there are.
I was hoping it would help people see that the ridiculous position is that small arms aren't instrumental to revolution (whether used or not). It clearly didn't work here.
|
On May 23 2019 07:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 05:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 20 2019 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 12:37 JimmiC wrote:
No peaceful revolution was won with small arms. What a ridiculous thing to say. Which ones are you thinking of where small arms weren't instrumental? Keep in mind the post you responded to included when they aren't used... You would be far wiser in investing in protections to keep your government from turning authoratarian, rising up and revolution sound exciting and noble but they actually mean tons of death destruction on massive scales. The trap of peace privilege. Revolution isn't desirable, it's becoming increasingly necessary to stave off mass extinction, pretending like I'm trying to turn it into something more noble than necessary is completely put on by you and not reflected in my posts at all. "Peace privilege" is thinking US marines are "heroes", not recognizing the impending threat of fascism, the military industrial complex, perpetual conflict, and climate change. On May 20 2019 14:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 20 2019 11:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 11:45 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is wacky to think that some how a small firearm is going to get you less exploited by the government. Even stranger then that with out the guns criminals are going to roving around invading the homes. I also find it shocking that you would be for a revolution and not just let what happens, happen.
It will not solve all the problems or even most. But if it gets unwanted guns off the streets and saves a few lives and millions in medical costs why not? Heck gun manufactures might even be on board since they could sell more new ones if people change their minds. Small arms (whether used or not) have been instrumental in near every resistance and revolution, it's reasonable to presume that would remain true in our case. This is even true in the realm of fantasy and fiction, from endgame, to GoT, to The Matrix. You can't even pretend a revolution without basic small arms (of the period) be it future, present, or past. You shouldn't be shocked. I provided some reasons "why not" but the more traditional explanation would be it's not worth the political capital given the circumstances and cost-benefit. I'm pretty sure GOT used dragons and inc**t. But I think you're right, if it was true in the matrix it's likely true real life. lol my point was that you can't even make a convincing fictional story about revolution without small arms, not that the matrix or GoT is real life... Why try to draw a comparison to real life with these examples? Both of those examples have no bearing on real life, they don't in any way bolster the point you are trying to make. The difference between any old example of revolution to any modern day one is that technology tilts the scales of power so much, I question whether any revolution could occur in the modern day. Even if the populous decided they would never stop fighting the power, people with power likely have enough power to wipe out the entire population and force a "reset." At that point there wouldn't be anything to rule, but if you have someone crazy enough in power they might (and my bigger point, could) effectively create a stalemate in which both sides completely lose. And I can't see it mattering much how many small arms there are. I was hoping it would help people see that the ridiculous position is that small arms aren't instrumental to revolution (whether used or not). It clearly didn't work here.
Sorry, I think I understood and disagree, but I also really disagree that is a good reason to have a country flooded with small arms.
It's unclear to me why the point is being presented.
|
|
|
On May 23 2019 08:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 07:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 05:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 20 2019 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 12:37 JimmiC wrote:
No peaceful revolution was won with small arms. What a ridiculous thing to say. Which ones are you thinking of where small arms weren't instrumental? Keep in mind the post you responded to included when they aren't used... You would be far wiser in investing in protections to keep your government from turning authoratarian, rising up and revolution sound exciting and noble but they actually mean tons of death destruction on massive scales. The trap of peace privilege. Revolution isn't desirable, it's becoming increasingly necessary to stave off mass extinction, pretending like I'm trying to turn it into something more noble than necessary is completely put on by you and not reflected in my posts at all. "Peace privilege" is thinking US marines are "heroes", not recognizing the impending threat of fascism, the military industrial complex, perpetual conflict, and climate change. On May 20 2019 14:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 20 2019 11:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 11:45 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is wacky to think that some how a small firearm is going to get you less exploited by the government. Even stranger then that with out the guns criminals are going to roving around invading the homes. I also find it shocking that you would be for a revolution and not just let what happens, happen.
It will not solve all the problems or even most. But if it gets unwanted guns off the streets and saves a few lives and millions in medical costs why not? Heck gun manufactures might even be on board since they could sell more new ones if people change their minds. Small arms (whether used or not) have been instrumental in near every resistance and revolution, it's reasonable to presume that would remain true in our case. This is even true in the realm of fantasy and fiction, from endgame, to GoT, to The Matrix. You can't even pretend a revolution without basic small arms (of the period) be it future, present, or past. You shouldn't be shocked. I provided some reasons "why not" but the more traditional explanation would be it's not worth the political capital given the circumstances and cost-benefit. I'm pretty sure GOT used dragons and inc**t. But I think you're right, if it was true in the matrix it's likely true real life. lol my point was that you can't even make a convincing fictional story about revolution without small arms, not that the matrix or GoT is real life... Why try to draw a comparison to real life with these examples? Both of those examples have no bearing on real life, they don't in any way bolster the point you are trying to make. The difference between any old example of revolution to any modern day one is that technology tilts the scales of power so much, I question whether any revolution could occur in the modern day. Even if the populous decided they would never stop fighting the power, people with power likely have enough power to wipe out the entire population and force a "reset." At that point there wouldn't be anything to rule, but if you have someone crazy enough in power they might (and my bigger point, could) effectively create a stalemate in which both sides completely lose. And I can't see it mattering much how many small arms there are. I was hoping it would help people see that the ridiculous position is that small arms aren't instrumental to revolution (whether used or not). It clearly didn't work here. That is because the ridiculous position is that getting a bunch of small arms to your untrained populace is a good idea, rather then to just further protect your democracy. But the even crazier point is to think that some mass civil war style revolution is going to put in a government that cares more about the environment and make it better, and not that that revolution will ravage the environment. When the far better strategy is to make actual changes yourself, influence others to and only vote for people who make this a priority. Another bad strategy is to not vote at all and just complain.
Who argued that stuff? Certainly wasn't me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
