Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, Jul 25, 2016.
Most detractors like to put gun supporters in a nice little identifiable box that they can strawman.
Not sure if you've been reading the thread enough to not see that done in the other side of the argument.
Thanks for the explanation!
Anyway, yeah, the distinction between states and the federal thing in general is confusing, but it's somewhat familiar to us germans at least.
Those double negatives confuse me. Please reword and yes I have been reading.
Because that has never happened Before
He thinks modern armies would stamp down any resistance but forgets the Iraq war.
So lots of historical figures overstated and glorified the positions of guns in society.
What does this information demonstrate other than that you are willing to use arguments from authority?
You may as well be skiing, because that seems to be a slippery slope you are using.
Why not judge whether a certain gun control policy will be useful now, instead of dismissing every attempt because you assume it'll gradually go beyond it's usefulness.
The revolutionary war was basically just the French bringing the British down a notch, by supporting some silly ungrateful colonists. Without french support, you guys would have still been part of that oh so terrible government that did a better job of abolishing slavery and introducing basic healthcare than you could have ever pulled off.
Without French support the war would have been drawn out and more bloody and then we would have beat the British into submission eventually anyway years down the line.
Yeah support in the form of...more guns.
No doubt the Texas Revolution against Mexico and the "War of Northern Aggression" were also examples of taking up arms against "tyranny". Plenty of examples considering America is not really that old.
So you think the american population could fight the full force of the US military? In which Universe? Sure not ours ...
As far as I can tell Iraq was won. Two times. What you're talking about, is the occupation but that is an entirely different story. The US is a foreigner here, just as how it was in Vietnam and any other situation where they experience issues. In some cases like Vietnam they faced the Sovietunion and China and not the Vietnamese. But in this hypothetical scenario, the US army would actually know the terrain, it would be a fight inside the United States. A 'Civil War'.
Why don't you look for example at Spain under Francos regime, he for example won and installed a dictatorship that lasted for decades, or the many other civil wars, where the authocratic regimes won, or how about Colombia, that had a war between the government and some guerilla for like a whole generation going. And that without any clear victor even to this day, they simply settled their dispute, because each side was exhausted. A war in which the population is fighting their government and the military, is far from a 'sure' thing, just look at South America, full of dictatorships and guerilla fighting like for ever against each other. It would be simply put a second Civil War, and they are by nature messy.
let us be honest, if some kind of authocratic regime would ever take place in the US, it will come with a 'gun', in other words it will have the majority of gun owners on it's side, as those are the people that have to be convinced. A fascist regime in the US will come with gun rights, and I feel a lot of people will happily give up their 'liberties' if the governments leaves their guns alone. As long as the opression doesn't hit them directly. That's how dictatorships work, not so much trough opression, but trough conviction. The majority of people actually believe in the government and the actions of their leader(s), the people did so in Germany, and they did so under Stalin in the Sovietunion and it took WW2 to get that one out of the Germans and 2 generations for the Soviets to sing a different tune.
For example, 29% of the US military would, according to some poll, actually support a couple:
Almost a third of Americans could imagine supporting a military coup against their own government, according to a new poll.
The YouGov survey showed 29% of Americans could imagine supporting a coup. Yet, 41% said they could not imagine supporting such an event.
YouGov, which conducts internet polls about “politics, public affairs, products, brands and other topics of general interest”, surveyed 1,000 people online on the issue.
They found that 43% of Republicans would support a military coup in certain instances, while only 20% of Democrats and 29% of independents would.
Make out of that, what ever you want.
What the government controlls here though in the case of an uprising, is more important than weapons. It's information. What ever small minority would take up arms hidding in the woods fighting abrams amd apache helicopters, would face a tremendious amount of propaganda. The majority would simply see them as terrorists.
So I am not so sure that this idea of an armed population is like a sure victory against their own government ... I mean I havn't seen people taking up arms when they opened Guantanamo, or when the Patriot Act was put in action, or when Snowden started his whistle blowing. Let us face the reality, the majority of Americans even the gun owners would be oportunistic and contemplating regarding authoritarian rule.
Poor Crni. Still thinking that our military would step all over us blindly like the other countries before us. Many would refuse in fact there are groups of service members dedicated to fighting against just such a thing. Even if they didn't they make up a fraction of the population of the US. I won't get too into discussing how you would fight a government like the US because I don't want to sound like a terrorist, but it could be done.
Yes, I am talking about Iraq as a whole not the meaningless war that won us the keys to all the shitty bases Saddam had. You cannot stamp out a cause as long as the people believe. You act like Guantanamo is supposed to mean anything to the average American. You think like the Brits did Crni. Sure, let us all stand in a line and shoot.
*shoots from the trees*
or the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.
You seem angry.... Anyway that is the battle of lexington and concord. The English Government thought it would be in their best interest if their fellow Englishmen were disarmed. no Frenchmen around for that one I'm afraid.
Implying Americans are all Mindless Murder Zombies who are "just following Orders" I mean its not Germany, friendo.
Wait until the Drone Strike card is played. besides the only people who get drone strike'd are those in wedding processions and the people who are going to the funereal for the people who got drone strike'd in the wedding processions.
Right. Drone strikes are so accurate we had to send in the fucking grunts to do the work to kill Bin Laden.
Irrespective of gun control, there is some profound misunderstanding of American culture in this thread. I blame Hollywood. Only half joking about the Hollywood part.
There are a few non-Americans in the thread who do seem to have a more nuanced understanding of the fundamental differences and commonalities between our respective cultures, but not many.
My core read of lots of folks here is that the real solution to the 'American' problem is 'Why can't we just make them all think like us'. Or, 'If they had our rules, regulations, and values, like the fine rational folk we are, all these problems would go away.' Which is ironic on many levels, given the number of times America's tried that exact same approach, and then been called out on it. One would think the more enlightened would take it as a cautionary tale.
At any rate, I think I've ridden the merry-go-round on this ticket enough this time out, so I am going to step off for a while and leave it to those who haven't yet become tired of the repeating scenery. My appreciation to those of you with whom I've had a real conversation, and thanks for the different perspective. And regardless of how anyone may feel about firearms, I hope none of you find yourself in a situation where you might have the need of one.
Gotta love the irony. Straight from a Codex debate just now:
Our king has a symbolic function though.
It's the prime minister that has real power.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The problem is that a lot of people read is as "A well regulated Militia, with the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." taking it to mean that is merely gives the militia the right to keep and bear arms.
While linguistic experts constantly point out that it's "A well regulated Militia (necessary to the security of a free State) and the right of the people to keep & bear Arms shall not be infringed." meaning that both are necessary. One being necessary for the security of the free State, while the other is necessary for the freedom of the individual.
That said, even in the first interpretation, it should be pointed out that "militia" referred to every able bodied man of fighting age. Not necessarily something like the National Guard.
Oppression literally means: "to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power"
If you think current gun control is unjust, then you are by definition oppressed. Society as a whole does not need to agree with you, but you are still able to say you're being oppressed. It is a subjective state of being.
One has little to do with the other. Firearms attempt to ensure personal safety (note: attempt) and may give pause to some who would encroach on your personal freedoms with physical means of oppression. It also gives you the option to take up arms when you feel you have been sufficiently wronged to rebel against your government.
Things like the patriot act however are not things which can be fought with firearms (unless suddenly the entire country decides enough is enough and goes to shoot up NSA bases ). It is something which needs to be fought on the political battle field. This however doesn't diminish the value of firearms.
So a cop approaches someone that has tried to illegally buy a drug often (ab)used to create a high. The cop issues orders to the person to stand down. The person ignores said orders. The cop draws his firearm because he feels threatened by the erratic movements of the person. Because said person fails to freeze when told to, the cop retreats multiple meters but the person keeps approaching. The person then fake draws a gun from his belt and is shot.
Is your comment really "the cop should have run away"? Why have cops if they have no authority to enforce the fucking law and protect themselves as well as other citizens?
Not sure what's so hard to understand. One is an actual & immediate call for violence in a specific instance, while the other is leaving the option to resort to it when it becomes necessary.
After all the shit you guys have had with ETA, you truly believe that the Catalans are unable to arm themselves? How fucking naive are you?
You don't NEED to be any of these things, but they all come into play if you're really into it all.
The fact that you immediately wipe it aside as irrelevant is as if you're saying that air resistance has nothing to do with motorsports.
You clearly have no fucking clue how important hunters are at maintaining the balance in our current environment. We have disrupted our environment to the point that we need to keep balance by hunting or what remains of our biodiversity will come crashing down.
Are you being dense on purpose?
Everything we do, including our hobbies has a cost in human lives.
The computer you play your games on was made using heavy metals mined in countries with far less environmental laws than we have, resulting in pollution.
The smartphone you have has components likely mined by underaged Africans, some of which will die for our toys.
Bikers die daily in traffic for what is largely a hobby.
Countless athletes drop dead from heart failure while sporting.
Car sports physically endanger drivers (and sometimes spectators) in potential crashes while constantly pump CO2 and fine dust into the air, reducing air quality to the point that we can prove they lower longevity for the entire population.
People smoke cigarettes and cigars for recreation and lower their own lifespan as well as that of all the people around them.
I can keep going for a few more hours. How can you say that our hobbies have no human cost? EVERYTHING we do has a cost.
Slippery slope is usually a logical fallacy, yes, but in this case you can demonstrate with actual examples throughout the entire western world that it is true.
Banning bumpfire stocks will have little to no actual effect on how deadly shootings will be in the future. Next time it will be a trigger crank used. And after we ban that, it will be a binary trigger.
Humans are extremely skilled at finding solutions to go around badly thought out laws like this.
Except that you fail to understand that the US military and police forces are also US citizens. A real violent uprising would give these people serious pause. It's highly likely that many would refuse to fight fellow americans if they feel the cause is even remotely justified.
Guns are not an "i win" button. No one says it is. But the question is: what chance do you have without them?
No pro-gun person in this entire thread has EVER said that any of this ensures victory. Please stop repeating this over & over.
this argument is a strawman or ad absurdium. take your pick.
the full force of the US military could not be brought against the american population. do not believe what you see in movies.
some random thoughts:
i hear a lot of people say they believe that the police are too brutal and too quick to use force. then i see those same people saying we need to get guns out of the hands of people and into those tasked with our protection like the police. i cannot be the only one to see the contradiction in those statements.
severe gun control if not outright banning is akin to the position that you do not trust yourself or your neighbor to have a gun, only someone else.
even in france with all their strict gun control laws, somehow a group of people were able to get fully automatic weapons and ammunition and use them against the people in i think it was 2015.
there was a video a few years ago i saw from an alaskan sheriff who was talking about how they would refuse to enforce any gun bans or prohibitions or any substantive change to gun laws. during the i think it was a 20-25 minute video, he turns the camera to a park out his back door showing a little kids park with swing sets and a jungle gym and says that his daughter plays there several times a week. there was a full grown bear walking through it and says something about how guns are not a luxury, they are required for them to live. not everyone lives in an urban city.
And the population can bring all the existing gun owners to fight the military? How's that not a straw-man ... so many people here throw the word straw-man around without actually knowing what it really means. What is this? The new Buzzword on the block, like a button with the describtion "automatically win this debate"?
Anyway. All I am saying is, that you have no chance to say who will be victorious in such a hypothetical scenario - The US popuplation fighting their own government and the military.
But again, that issue is pretty much irrelevant. The future won't be about the danger of a fascist military regime:
The Chinese government plans to launch its Social Credit System in 2020. The aim? To judge the trustworthiness – or otherwise – of its 1.3 billion residents
You haven't seen enough succesful coups and risings of totalitarian regimes from the last century and some more, I see. It's not even about if people COULD repel such a thing, but about if they'll even actually resist at all. At ñeast, enough to make a difference.
my family has a large history with the military. i work on a military base. my neighborhood is 80% military if not more. i know a lot of people who have served in the military.
you want to talk about the theoretical? sure, there would be some places the military would have it real easy if they were ignoring casualties or methods. there would be lots of places they would find it difficult.
you want to talk about the reality? not going to happen on anything other than a very small and limited scale and under dire situations.
did you know that if a president ordered the military to say take over and control even say detroit, it would constitute an illegal order, and in highest probability violate the constitution? it would violate a fair number of laws. it is actually very difficult for the US military to be used against the american population, and that is on purpose. in fact, the de-facto rule is that it is illegal to do so and any soldier ordered to do so is required to ignore any such order.