|
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 December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I can’t say we hold the exact same views, but something of parallel (maybe that’s the right word?). Your lives lost from terrorist gun violence, yet refusal to yield to calls for a surveillance state (after all, what could be more precious that preservation of life) is sane. You can still express sincere sympathy, prayers if that’s your thing, for the resulting deaths. Your stand against the surveillance state does not cheat your sympathy of meaning, and woe to anyone who says it does.
There’s several liberties I now hold, that I’d eventually be persuaded to fight for and die for if a future tyrannical state took them away. The rich tradition dates further back beyond the Revolution, where something as scoffed at like “taxation” (or “stuff”) led to so many lives lost in gun violence “continued safety of innocents” “precious human life.” I still think the noble preservation of gun rights continue to guard against the need for such a revolution again. The second amendment is not the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights guaranteed to me in the bill of rights, but indeed stands as a prophylactic step against unimaginable loss of life in the future. I might even dare say, loss of human rights I hold very dear alongside life.
But when you reduce it all to valuing stuff over life, you indulge a false dichotomy. When you deny the other side true sympathy, real expressions of condolences, and actually thinking deaths from violence is a problem today, you undermine any basis of arguing from shared humanity you can hope to make. And I won’t blame a single person for checking out of the legislative battle when the opening salvo is “fuck your thoughts and prayers hypocrite, just kidding” ... as the most recent mass shooting started off with.
|
On December 12 2019 07:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I can’t say we hold the exact same views, but something of parallel (maybe that’s the right word?). There’s several liberties I now hold, that I’d eventually be persuaded to fight for and die for if a future tyrannical state took them away. The rich tradition dates further back beyond the Revolution, where something as scoffed at like “taxation” (or “stuff”) led to so many lives lost in gun violence “continued safety of innocents” “precious human life.” I still think the noble preservation of gun rights continue to guard against the need for such a revolution again. The second amendment is not the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights guaranteed to me in the bill of rights, but indeed stands as a prophylactic step against unimaginable loss of life in the future. I might even dare say, loss of human rights I hold very dear alongside life. But when you reduce it all to valuing stuff over life, you indulge a false dichotomy. When you deny the other side true sympathy, real expressions of condolences, and actually thinking deaths from violence is a problem today, you undermine any basis of arguing from shared humanity you can hope to make. And I won’t blame a single person for checking out of the legislative battle when the opening salvo is “fuck your thoughts and prayers hypocrite, just kidding” ... as the most recent mass shooting started off with.
Correct me if i'm wrong
You want to keep current gun laws in case taxes ever rises too much or in case of some apocalyptic scenario ?
|
United States43752 Posts
On December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I would define that as being happy to live in a society in which people have sufficient freedom that they can commit a terrorist attack.
|
Northern Ireland26460 Posts
On December 12 2019 07:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I would define that as being happy to live in a society in which people have sufficient freedom that they can commit a terrorist attack.
Well perhaps, I merely meant that as analogous to the unfortunate direction this thread has taken.
For ‘you don’t have sympathy really’ on the issue of guns and Danglars, I could absolutely see myself attacked on a similar basis if a preventable terrorist incident occurred.
|
|
|
On December 12 2019 07:45 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 07:39 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I can’t say we hold the exact same views, but something of parallel (maybe that’s the right word?). There’s several liberties I now hold, that I’d eventually be persuaded to fight for and die for if a future tyrannical state took them away. The rich tradition dates further back beyond the Revolution, where something as scoffed at like “taxation” (or “stuff”) led to so many lives lost in gun violence “continued safety of innocents” “precious human life.” I still think the noble preservation of gun rights continue to guard against the need for such a revolution again. The second amendment is not the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights guaranteed to me in the bill of rights, but indeed stands as a prophylactic step against unimaginable loss of life in the future. I might even dare say, loss of human rights I hold very dear alongside life. But when you reduce it all to valuing stuff over life, you indulge a false dichotomy. When you deny the other side true sympathy, real expressions of condolences, and actually thinking deaths from violence is a problem today, you undermine any basis of arguing from shared humanity you can hope to make. And I won’t blame a single person for checking out of the legislative battle when the opening salvo is “fuck your thoughts and prayers hypocrite, just kidding” ... as the most recent mass shooting started off with. Correct me if i'm wrong You want to keep current gun laws in case taxes ever rises too much or in case of some apocalyptic scenario ?
I made an edit to make my point a little more clear in that post. The case of the American revolution serves to put the lie to claims that lives should always trump stuff. They fought and died for rights about their stuff (taxation), and that was the birth of this great country. I agree with the argument presented in the Declaration of Independence as it relates to rights about stuff, and of their decision to commit to lives lost from gun violence to make an effect of it.
Simultaneously, I think an armed citizenry is the ultimate protection against a government turning into a tyranny—of the majority against a minority, of an elite class against the rights of the less well connected, or of any group against the rights enshrined in the constitution. It’s a deterrent effect for aspiring political groups that might hope to get frisky with the first amendment, or the fourth amendment. The second amendment is a deterrent and a means of last resort, and things like separation of powers, the electoral college, and federalism are good protections up to that final stage. You won’t be able to disarm people to force compliance with a series of unjust laws trampling on civil rights, it would get bloody for both sides. This isn’t in relation to taxation specifically; that’s a historical example of my other point in life vs stuff.
|
On December 12 2019 08:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 07:45 Erasme wrote:On December 12 2019 07:39 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I can’t say we hold the exact same views, but something of parallel (maybe that’s the right word?). There’s several liberties I now hold, that I’d eventually be persuaded to fight for and die for if a future tyrannical state took them away. The rich tradition dates further back beyond the Revolution, where something as scoffed at like “taxation” (or “stuff”) led to so many lives lost in gun violence “continued safety of innocents” “precious human life.” I still think the noble preservation of gun rights continue to guard against the need for such a revolution again. The second amendment is not the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights guaranteed to me in the bill of rights, but indeed stands as a prophylactic step against unimaginable loss of life in the future. I might even dare say, loss of human rights I hold very dear alongside life. But when you reduce it all to valuing stuff over life, you indulge a false dichotomy. When you deny the other side true sympathy, real expressions of condolences, and actually thinking deaths from violence is a problem today, you undermine any basis of arguing from shared humanity you can hope to make. And I won’t blame a single person for checking out of the legislative battle when the opening salvo is “fuck your thoughts and prayers hypocrite, just kidding” ... as the most recent mass shooting started off with. Correct me if i'm wrong You want to keep current gun laws in case taxes ever rises too much or in case of some apocalyptic scenario ? I made an edit to make my point a little more clear in that post. The case of the American revolution serves to put the lie to claims that lives should always trump stuff. They fought and died for rights about their stuff (taxation), and that was the birth of this great country. Simultaneously, I think an armed citizenry is the ultimate protection against a government turning into a tyranny—of the majority, of an elite class against the rights of the less well connected, or the rights enshrined in the constitution. It’s a deterrent effect for aspiring political groups that might hope to get frisky with the first amendment, or the fourth amendment. You won’t be able to disarm people to force compliance with a series of unjust laws trampling on civil rights, it would get bloody for both sides. This isn’t in relation to taxation specifically; that’s a historical example of my other point in life vs stuff. A concept that was somewhat believable in the 1800's when a bunch of guys with flintlocks were considered an army.
Gl against the modern day army. And if the tyrannic government your trying to overthrow doesn't have support of the army you don't need a citizen militia to overthrow it.
That you actually think it would be bloody for both sides has no basis in reality.
|
On December 12 2019 08:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 08:34 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:45 Erasme wrote:On December 12 2019 07:39 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I can’t say we hold the exact same views, but something of parallel (maybe that’s the right word?). There’s several liberties I now hold, that I’d eventually be persuaded to fight for and die for if a future tyrannical state took them away. The rich tradition dates further back beyond the Revolution, where something as scoffed at like “taxation” (or “stuff”) led to so many lives lost in gun violence “continued safety of innocents” “precious human life.” I still think the noble preservation of gun rights continue to guard against the need for such a revolution again. The second amendment is not the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights guaranteed to me in the bill of rights, but indeed stands as a prophylactic step against unimaginable loss of life in the future. I might even dare say, loss of human rights I hold very dear alongside life. But when you reduce it all to valuing stuff over life, you indulge a false dichotomy. When you deny the other side true sympathy, real expressions of condolences, and actually thinking deaths from violence is a problem today, you undermine any basis of arguing from shared humanity you can hope to make. And I won’t blame a single person for checking out of the legislative battle when the opening salvo is “fuck your thoughts and prayers hypocrite, just kidding” ... as the most recent mass shooting started off with. Correct me if i'm wrong You want to keep current gun laws in case taxes ever rises too much or in case of some apocalyptic scenario ? I made an edit to make my point a little more clear in that post. The case of the American revolution serves to put the lie to claims that lives should always trump stuff. They fought and died for rights about their stuff (taxation), and that was the birth of this great country. Simultaneously, I think an armed citizenry is the ultimate protection against a government turning into a tyranny—of the majority, of an elite class against the rights of the less well connected, or the rights enshrined in the constitution. It’s a deterrent effect for aspiring political groups that might hope to get frisky with the first amendment, or the fourth amendment. You won’t be able to disarm people to force compliance with a series of unjust laws trampling on civil rights, it would get bloody for both sides. This isn’t in relation to taxation specifically; that’s a historical example of my other point in life vs stuff. A concept that was somewhat believable in the 1800's when a bunch of guys with flintlocks were considered an army. Gl against the modern day army. And if the tyrannic government your trying to overthrow doesn't have support of the army you don't need a citizen militia to overthrow it. That you actually think it would be bloody for both sides has no basis in reality.
I think modern guerilla wars that the US has taken part in prove the opposite. It doesn't take the high tech weaponry that the US possesses to bloody up an army and sap their backers of the will to continue. I'm not pretending a tyrannic government would sustain proportionate losses, but it would still be bloody if they want to enforce that tyranny. And never forget, an American army under control of a government turned tyrannical cannnot be presumed to remain under that control should enough citizens exercising their second amendment rights turn up to oppose them.
The back and forth on this particular aspect of this debate has been played out quite a bit in the history of the thread, so I don't think a ton of rehashing is necessary.
|
The forward recently published an article about the recent anti-Semitic ideologically-motivated shooting. I think it's valuable to illustrate aspects of shootings that don't solely revolve around gun used and gun laws implicated.
The Silence Surrounding Violence Against Us Orthodox Jews Is Deafening
by Eli Steinberg
Yesterday was one of those days Jews are becoming more and more familiar with. It was a day we wish we could forget, but we know we will remember forever. With two murderers deliberately targeting a Jewish store in Jersey City, killing three innocent people, two of them Jews, the confidence we can have in our own safety and security seems more and more tenuous by the day.
It feels like we will be the only people who will remember it, though. This morning, a cursory look at the front pages of America’s leading newspapers yielded little to alert you that Jews were killed in broad daylight yesterday, for no other crime than for being visibly Jewish.
For many of us, whom I now call “visibly Orthodox Jews,” this comes as no surprise. In recent years, we have been subjected to this sort of treatment more and more.
The recorded levels of hate crimes continue steadily rising in New York and across the country. Government bodies in townships and municipalities overtly discriminate against Jews, using zoning laws to keep them from moving in, and when they do, to keep them from being able to practice their religion or worship. And social media keeps on becoming an ever-growing petri dish of sickening proportion, where Jew-hatred is cultivated and allowed to fester unchecked.
Anti-Semitism is seemingly only worth covering if it can be framed in political terms, with President Trump and white supremacy on one side and the Jews and everyone else on the other. The capacity for discussing anti-Semitism in any other way, using any other frame, simply doesn’t seem to exist.
People may think we are having a national conversation about anti-Semitism, but we really aren’t. What we keep on talking about is politics. If we can’t fit every story into the preconceived narrative we’ve built in that arena, we just ignore it and search for a story that we can.
What happens when the stories get more complex? What happens when the victims are people who publicly align themselves with the President? What happens when the people committing the acts of anti-Semitism against them aren’t white nationalists, but minorities — like the former Black Hebrew Israelite who committed the Jersey City murders?
Then we ignore it.
Visibly Orthodox Jews increasingly find themselves left out in the cold, abandoned and alone in the face of the anti-Semitism targeting us specifically. Jewish institutions dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism are there with statements and resources, but beyond that, it’s hard to get anyone to act as though they really care about us.
Even worse, our fellow Jews sometimes participate in our alienation.
When people can only recognize anti-Semitism when it comes from the other side of the aisle, it isn’t ant-Semitism which bothers them; it is their political enemies. It isn’t Jew hatred that is at stake but politics, and winning.
And the Jews — the visibly Orthodox Jews — who are the ones bearing the brunt of the violent anti-Semitism, are the ones who suffer, just because we, and the “type” of violence we are enduring, don’t fit neatly into the political box so many wish we would.
It’s a terrible state to be in, subjected to regular violence and now a massacre, yet to be utterly alone. Won’t anyone set aside politics and stand up for what’s right, stand up for the most visible, vulnerable among us? Why won’t anyone hear our cries as we try to tell the story of how we are being targeted?
The Forward
I think the rising anti-semitism in New York City and other metropolitan areas is a big background factor in this case. The city and tri-state area needs to do more to vocally oppose the rise in anti-semitic hate crimes not attributable to far-right figures. It doesn't fit in with current political narratives regarding guns, or the alt-right, or minorities. But still the Jews are suffering from violence in this area, and that aspect is neglected in the national dialogue. Photos of this story on anti-semitism are pictured on the website, showing a lack of national media attention on the attack.
|
|
|
|
|
On December 12 2019 08:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 07:45 Erasme wrote:On December 12 2019 07:39 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I can’t say we hold the exact same views, but something of parallel (maybe that’s the right word?). There’s several liberties I now hold, that I’d eventually be persuaded to fight for and die for if a future tyrannical state took them away. The rich tradition dates further back beyond the Revolution, where something as scoffed at like “taxation” (or “stuff”) led to so many lives lost in gun violence “continued safety of innocents” “precious human life.” I still think the noble preservation of gun rights continue to guard against the need for such a revolution again. The second amendment is not the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights guaranteed to me in the bill of rights, but indeed stands as a prophylactic step against unimaginable loss of life in the future. I might even dare say, loss of human rights I hold very dear alongside life. But when you reduce it all to valuing stuff over life, you indulge a false dichotomy. When you deny the other side true sympathy, real expressions of condolences, and actually thinking deaths from violence is a problem today, you undermine any basis of arguing from shared humanity you can hope to make. And I won’t blame a single person for checking out of the legislative battle when the opening salvo is “fuck your thoughts and prayers hypocrite, just kidding” ... as the most recent mass shooting started off with. Correct me if i'm wrong You want to keep current gun laws in case taxes ever rises too much or in case of some apocalyptic scenario ? I made an edit to make my point a little more clear in that post. The case of the American revolution serves to put the lie to claims that lives should always trump stuff. They fought and died for rights about their stuff (taxation), and that was the birth of this great country. I agree with the argument presented in the Declaration of Independence as it relates to rights about stuff, and of their decision to commit to lives lost from gun violence to make an effect of it. Simultaneously, I think an armed citizenry is the ultimate protection against a government turning into a tyranny—of the majority against a minority, of an elite class against the rights of the less well connected, or of any group against the rights enshrined in the constitution. It’s a deterrent effect for aspiring political groups that might hope to get frisky with the first amendment, or the fourth amendment. The second amendment is a deterrent and a means of last resort, and things like separation of powers, the electoral college, and federalism are good protections up to that final stage. You won’t be able to disarm people to force compliance with a series of unjust laws trampling on civil rights, it would get bloody for both sides. This isn’t in relation to taxation specifically; that’s a historical example of my other point in life vs stuff.
So, basically, what you are saying is that you need guns to murder the majority if it does not agree with you, say on the fourth amendment. You wrote it, I really can't interpret it any other way. You are willing to murder your political opponents if laws get changed. Maybe because you see the other side as subhuman? Because you couldn't possibly believe that revolting against democratic change and killing people doing it should be done if the other side had valid opinions and real emotions as well.
|
Canada11456 Posts
That is a really poor reading of Danglar's position and you know it.
|
Northern Ireland26460 Posts
On December 12 2019 09:11 Danglars wrote:The forward recently published an article about the recent anti-Semitic ideologically-motivated shooting. I think it's valuable to illustrate aspects of shootings that don't solely revolve around gun used and gun laws implicated. Show nested quote +The Silence Surrounding Violence Against Us Orthodox Jews Is Deafening
by Eli Steinberg
Yesterday was one of those days Jews are becoming more and more familiar with. It was a day we wish we could forget, but we know we will remember forever. With two murderers deliberately targeting a Jewish store in Jersey City, killing three innocent people, two of them Jews, the confidence we can have in our own safety and security seems more and more tenuous by the day.
It feels like we will be the only people who will remember it, though. This morning, a cursory look at the front pages of America’s leading newspapers yielded little to alert you that Jews were killed in broad daylight yesterday, for no other crime than for being visibly Jewish.
For many of us, whom I now call “visibly Orthodox Jews,” this comes as no surprise. In recent years, we have been subjected to this sort of treatment more and more.
The recorded levels of hate crimes continue steadily rising in New York and across the country. Government bodies in townships and municipalities overtly discriminate against Jews, using zoning laws to keep them from moving in, and when they do, to keep them from being able to practice their religion or worship. And social media keeps on becoming an ever-growing petri dish of sickening proportion, where Jew-hatred is cultivated and allowed to fester unchecked.
Anti-Semitism is seemingly only worth covering if it can be framed in political terms, with President Trump and white supremacy on one side and the Jews and everyone else on the other. The capacity for discussing anti-Semitism in any other way, using any other frame, simply doesn’t seem to exist.
People may think we are having a national conversation about anti-Semitism, but we really aren’t. What we keep on talking about is politics. If we can’t fit every story into the preconceived narrative we’ve built in that arena, we just ignore it and search for a story that we can.
What happens when the stories get more complex? What happens when the victims are people who publicly align themselves with the President? What happens when the people committing the acts of anti-Semitism against them aren’t white nationalists, but minorities — like the former Black Hebrew Israelite who committed the Jersey City murders?
Then we ignore it.
Visibly Orthodox Jews increasingly find themselves left out in the cold, abandoned and alone in the face of the anti-Semitism targeting us specifically. Jewish institutions dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism are there with statements and resources, but beyond that, it’s hard to get anyone to act as though they really care about us.
Even worse, our fellow Jews sometimes participate in our alienation.
When people can only recognize anti-Semitism when it comes from the other side of the aisle, it isn’t ant-Semitism which bothers them; it is their political enemies. It isn’t Jew hatred that is at stake but politics, and winning.
And the Jews — the visibly Orthodox Jews — who are the ones bearing the brunt of the violent anti-Semitism, are the ones who suffer, just because we, and the “type” of violence we are enduring, don’t fit neatly into the political box so many wish we would.
It’s a terrible state to be in, subjected to regular violence and now a massacre, yet to be utterly alone. Won’t anyone set aside politics and stand up for what’s right, stand up for the most visible, vulnerable among us? Why won’t anyone hear our cries as we try to tell the story of how we are being targeted? The ForwardI think the rising anti-semitism in New York City and other metropolitan areas is a big background factor in this case. The city and tri-state area needs to do more to vocally oppose the rise in anti-semitic hate crimes not attributable to far-right figures. It doesn't fit in with current political narratives regarding guns, or the alt-right, or minorities. But still the Jews are suffering from violence in this area, and that aspect is neglected in the national dialogue. Photos of this story on anti-semitism are pictured on the website, showing a lack of national media attention on the attack.
It’s difficult really to ascertain.
Not criticising you in particular on this specific example, oft in the past I deal with people saying ‘nobody is talking about x’ when indeed there are plenty of articles on said topic.
It’s a rather competitive news space and certain stories latch on and grab public interest after initially being covered, some do not. Then some outlets choose to push certain narratives or cover certain stories hard, and without being on the inside it’s difficult to discern which stories organically have lived or died, and which are being actively pushed or buried.
I think there’s a broad lack of both courage and a pursuit of veracity when it comes to various forms of political violence and how it’s covered though, agreed with you there 100%
Anti-Semitism is definitely on the rise, read almost any political video/post comment section and you’ll see it, often times apropos of nothing or disconnected entirely with the actual topic.
In the UK it’s most visible in the far left, the far right and then from a segment of the Muslim population that don’t particularly fit either category.
Rare is the piece looking at all three manifestations and both their similarities and differences. Instead we’ve got a sustained campaign from the right media that it’s infested Labour and the left, left media denying that and going on about the alt-right, etc etc.
Ultimately you don’t solve societal issues if you can’t even identify the actual causes and abrogate any kind of responsibility from ‘your side’
|
On December 12 2019 18:02 Falling wrote:
That is a really poor reading of Danglar's position and you know it.
It is simply the same technique that Danglars used a page back on me.
|
On December 12 2019 18:02 Falling wrote:
That is a really poor reading of Danglar's position and you know it.
Well, that was the intention. Even though I am not even sure it is that far from his intented meaning. He says guns are a deterrent for a tyrannical government and that both sides would sustain bloody losses. And in the same post he says that this would help against the majority, defining his enemy not as the tyrannical government but just as the government that does not represent his minority. Please explain why this reading of his post is wrong.
He is literally saying having guns is a deterrent to the majority to change the constitution, as that would cause death amon both sides.
|
I think the amount of people saying they'll arm themselves and fight against the tyranny, will be vastly less than the people actually fighting the tyranny. Almost no one feels like giving up their comfortable lives.
|
|
|
I don't know, it turns out it is really easy to get humans to kill other humans. All you have to do is to label them as "other" or as animals, that sort of thing. In WW1, the ideology wasn't there, people saw each other as fellow humans fighting for abstract reasons, with heads of state which were cousins, which was why in some places the trenchlines were completely passive and they could get together and play football at Christmas. Only for one Christmas mind you because afterwards the senior staff officers started throwing artillery at each other to destroy both sides willingness to not kill each other. It turns out if you kill some of the other guys, the other guys are suddenly happy to kill you.
By WW2 such psychological events were not needed, the other sides were easily demonised as "other". And so it is, if you are thinking "tyrannical government" you are already thinking them as "other". As can be seen in this forum, many Americans harbour murder "home intruder" fantasies, and as such it wouldn't take much to convert that to kill with an excuse and an itchy trigger finger.
Anyways, the notion that a tyranical government can be brought down by a patchy network of wannabe commandos (look up the origin of commando into the English language for a double meaning) isn't borne out by modern history. I mean this was originally a starcraft forum. Look at South Korea. It wasn't an armed populace fighting against the South Korean military that brought democracy, it was widespread support, both military and civilian, when both their interest align.
Disturbingly, in USA, the military seemed to be aligned and infiltrated with organisations and culture against democratic ideals. If a time comes, those paramilitary groups wouldn't be fighting against the military of a tyranical government, they would be fighting against those who oppose the tyranny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
