Gun Control

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, Jul 25, 2016.

  1. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008


    I love it when people argue 'theoretically', on how difficult it would be, and then guns are brought up in the debate as 'defence' against something that is 'theoretically' very unlikely.

    It goes without a saying, that in such a scenario most of the military and probably the population would be ON THE SIDE OF THE TYRANICAL GOVERNMENT, which in their mind would not be tyranical, but necessary. A coupe or take over doesn't happen over night. Did you know that the Weimar Republic had a constitution too? The Nazis did a hell of a lot of things that have been 'illegal' under the constitution, but no one gave a fuck about it, thats why they could do it, that's how things operated. No one in the entire Wehrmacht spoke against Hitler when they put an oath on his person, rather than the republic and the constitution.
    The Nazis build an ideology that promised the people a lot, and they went with it. And this, is something that could happen in the US just as everywhere else - I am not saying that it is LIKELY to happen, just that it is POSSIBLE, americans are not aliens, and in such a case the majority of the citizens, including gun owners, would be on the side of the government, be it because of propaganda or some strange sense of honor, duty, patriotism what ever. I quote:

    • Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

      Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

      Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_Göring



    I already said it, and I say it again. If fascism ever makes it to the US, then it will come wraped in to the flag and with a gun(right). It will be covered as patriotism, as rightfull duty to the nation, as action to defend the nation. Constitutions are pieces of paper, they are only as much worth as the people that believe in it, and that number is dwindling. If 90% of the population suddenly believes that it's not worth a dime, you can use it as toilet paper. How many people would stand up and taking up arms if the government would start to round up Muslims, throwing them in 'detention' camps, or if you want concentration camps. Impossible? Mhmm .... let us think again ...



    Think about it this way, has anyone seriously tried to topple the government when it became apparant that it 'lied' or at the very least 'missinformed' the population about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? had that any consequences at all? How many people not just on the american side have died in all of the useless conflicts that happend since 9/11, which just for it self, still is an unsolved issue, but let us not get to much into that. Has any of that ever had any consequences? Any president, at least since 2001, has violated one way or another, including Obama, all kinds of human rights and international laws. But does that concern the population? Not by much I would say, and why? Because most americans have the self-image of being the good guys, even if they do sometimes a few bad things, but all in all it's for democracy and liberty, so the end justifies the means?. The reality is, not enough have been concerned to actually take up actions. No, that would ridiculous, you don't start a revolution over such things - and neither should we, as revolutions are often enough bloody and tend not to improve the situation. But the point I want to make is, that tyranical governements or populations do not see them self or represent themself as the Evil, they rationalise their decisions, they justify their actions and in such a way, that it sounds plausible, if not for everyone but for the majority. The nazis or communists never came in, explaining themself as the evil guys or demons, no they always saw themself as the good ones, who had the dificult job of exterminating the evil. You would be surprised how many, even high ranking Nazi officials, generals etc. actually had the opinion, that not all Jews have been 'bad' and actually some of them pretty good human beings, but that it was simply necessary from their point of view to remove them, as they saw the jewish race and religion as inherently evil - which sounds awfully familar to what some people say about islam and muslims today.

    That is how such systems operate. The enemy is evil, and he has to be erradicated, and exceptions just proof the rule.

    I just find this idea, that an armed population would topple their own tyranical government laughable. Dicatorships, usually work with the approval of their population, or that is the moment they cease to exist and something else will take up the power. That's how it happend in Iran, in Germany, Afghanistan, tzarist Russia and many other places. And I do not have any doubts in my mind, that something similar could happen in the United States, given the right conditions there are historical presedences and the average american citizen is not special here compared to the rest of the human population.

    The only instance, that I could actually get behind is the idea of a foreign power invading the United States, yes in such a scenario they would have a very difficult time! Proably no power, could beat their population. But how likely is that? It's even less likely compared to the United States becoming a dictatorship. No one's going to attack a nation with nuclear weapons, hell not even Trump is that stupid, as we can see with North Korea which is all bark and no bite.

    So don't give me this YOU DUN NOTHING; I KNEW MILITARY thing.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2017
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  2. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016
    As for another "guns would totally help" case, the Spanish Civil War. On desperation at the sight that the Rebel forces, backed by the would-be Axis, and that most of the rural population supported it themselves, the Republican side armed the civillians using the thousands of firearms they didn't even have enough people to arm with. Whenever there was a chance of repelling the rebels, even if it was kind of unavoidable once the Foreign Legion pissed off because the would-be Axis asked nicely, the civillians splintered as soon as the Republic bat an eye. Ironically, one of the only insatnces with "actual Communism" was established during the conflict. Also, the Anarchists that had been causing some of the most fucking tragic events in recent history, got free reign and did diddly shit of what they were asked to. Not even the Russian support, which was the one that didn't retire after the treaty of neutrality, managed to make the splintered factions behave.

    This piece of propaganda looks very patriotic and is indeed pretty inspiring in what made the 2nd Republic important, but it's really a "for fuck's sake will you stop fucking around"


    You act like if it's impossible to reach middle grounds with anything, let alone this topic. TheWesDude here, seems to want to take back the argument to Page 2.

    That's the biggest strawman I've seen in my short life. At least I understand how you see our argument:


    We can live without Military Grade firearms in relatively simple access to standing civilians. It's truly not that complicated and the "loss" of getting your toys taken away or needing to do some extra work to actually get them, when even a single live could be saved by that ridiculously costless move. Computers are basically digital books that can make you connect to anyone in the world, at any time, at basically zero delay if you aren't in the Antarctica. Most media is created in them, and then consumed. Same for smartphones and the added portability.

    Really, that amounted to
    - "I believe that stricter limitations on firearms like making MG unavaleible or extra hoops, to name some will improve overall criminality, living conditions and wellbeing of the most"
    - "WELL, PEOPLE DIE, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?"

    Summing it up:
    The same.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  3. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Just to make this clear, I have no doubt that there are many situation where a gun can actually be a usefull thing. Wars, conflicts, self defence, we're living in a dangerous world. There can be no doubts about it. For example, there are countless of rural areas in the US, where a gun is really a good thing to have and I do not have any problem with that.

    It is just this unshakable feeling that at least some seem to have that a gun makes you kinda inherently prone to (state) propaganda or a rapid defender of constitutional rights no matter what.

    I would simply wager, that there is a substantial high number of individuals, that would feel less threatened by a suspension or limitation on freedom of speech as long as the second amandmend is left alone, or even expanded.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2017
  4. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016
    As I've said, I see no reason to forbid someone a gun if they'll NEED it. Say, depending on the population you live it could be way more facilitated. Say, at Bumfuckwood I see no reason to make it hard for people to get hold of some when there's acknowledged high density of wild predators or long periods of isolation. At areas with average or above population? Hell naw, why? If it's urban, law enforcement, wether it's opressive and orwellian and whatnot, will do a better job at whatever the civillians would archieve by themselves.
     
  5. TheGM

    TheGM The voice of reason

    Aug 19, 2008
    Who said anything about Need?
     
  6. Jogre

    Jogre It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    Adding on to this, SuaSide seems to be ignoring that it's possible to obtain mostly ethical computers/smartphones. If you make sure to trace where the parts are imported from on your computer, or buy a special ethically made smartphone, it is very possible to minimise the human rights abuses behind them.

    Also accidents in biking and football tend to be accidents involving the people participating, not mass murders.
    Because if you take away the need part of it, the whole arguement of the pro-gun side seems almost selfish.

    It's one thing if someone has a genuine concern for there safety and needs these very dangerous things to have minimal restrictions because they genuinely need this thing to be safe, that's one thing.

    If someone's arguing against policies which could genuinely improve homicide rates, and they have no reason to need such tools, does that not come across as selfish?

    Need is a good motive for arguing against gun control, but I fail to see how anything other than need would be.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  7. TheGM

    TheGM The voice of reason

    Aug 19, 2008
    Last time I checked it wasn't called the bill of needs.

    Your Argument: BUSTED.
     
  8. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    Cerni, the main crux of your argument is that because left-wing politics have managed to create some pretty horrible situations such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Communist Russia, Communist North Korea, and Socialist Venezuela that defending yourself even en masse against the government would be impossible. well, to that i would say, it would seem easiest to block left wing politics from taking root in the US. then there would be no possibility of a tyrannical government.

    the whole point of advocating for a small government is that it requires a large government to become oppressive or tyrannical. only a large government has the power to enforce its policies en-mass upon the population.

    in the US it is very difficult to get Millitary Grade firearms. again, not sure what movies you have been watching, but the reality is very different. in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, most of the gun channels and gun groups that i sometimes pay attention to were wondering why when the FBI and ATF notified Obama that they were finding these bump-stocks and other rapid-firing mechanisms to modify the guns to behave like automatic weapons, that Obama did nothing to get rid of them or raise their awareness to get them banned. instead he did nothing.

    and just as a note, the NRA would support legislation to ban bump-fire stocks, the problem is that the several bills that have been submitted did not ban just bump-fire stocks, the one with the most likely to get voted on was Feinstein's bill, which of course was filled with her typical nonsense that made it so it had zero chance to pass as well. of course rather than a reasonable bill being proposed that would ban them, most republicans would rather watch the democrats flounder around with their typical idiocy and get tons of money for re-election.

    the problem with the "NEED!" argument is who determines who has a valid need? the US Supreme Court has determined that everyone has a valid need for a gun unless adjudicated to not have that right.

    so, lets cover some questions.

    1: do you think an individual has an inherent/natural right to defend themselves from others?

    2: do you think an individual has the right to use lethal force against another person?

    3: do you think that Capital Punishment should be legal and the State should be able to execute convicted criminals?

    4: are you in favor of legalized abortions?
     
  9. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016
    So it's a whim?

    Also LOL TheWesDude
     
  10. Prone Squanderer

    Prone Squanderer A bit of a Sillius Soddus.

    Jan 3, 2016
    You could at least address his questions Arnust, rather than just going "HAHA you stupid!" essentially.
     
  11. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016
    - Ignoring what I ellaborated on the Spanish Civil War and throwing around unsupported arguments seeming to be "totalitarian regimes were caused by the Left!"
    - Ignoring/misunderstanding the other's points of at least the last 10 pages
    - "You must have seen too many movies"
    - Disregard for caps
    - The NRA dindu nuffin
    -
    :wtf:
     
  12. YeeCop

    YeeCop Just a Sweet Irradiated Transvestite

    281
    Jan 26, 2017
    The US military are the defenders of the Constitution, not the American government. Plus I'm pretty sure any self-respecting American soldier would not be game to murder fellow Americans in the situation of a civilian-led coup.

    Urban dweller gun ownership is more important than ever because the average police response time in America is fourteen minutes tops, and I imagine it's even longer in rural areas. By then, home invaders, muggers, or burglars have already made way with your valuables. Versus thugs breaking into your home, and you pull out with his SIG Sauer and BAM! You've delivered justice.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2017
  13. Jogre

    Jogre It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    "I can completely disregard the safety of others, for the sake of my own toys, because some 200 year old dudes with no idea how 21st century society works say so"

    I wouldn't consider it a valid point if someone used the bible to back up there political/ethical/whatever views, and I don't consider it a valid point if someone uses the US Constitution either. Simply using a document, and considering it's word to be overriding to any political/ethical statements anyone else ever makes is not a valid line of reasoning IMO.
    Ah so you are one of the people who thinks every dictatorship ever was left-wing politics.

    Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were the result of rampant nationalistic politics, and were supported by many far-right nationalists across the world at the time.
     
  14. TheGM

    TheGM The voice of reason

    Aug 19, 2008
    That Strawmanning.
    Fair enough. I consider arguments made from appeals to emotion, fear and anger to be hilarious. preposterous prepositions and a constantly changing definition of what makes a valid point to be even more so. not to mention the idea of anything they disagree with to be an nonviable point to be the cherry on top of that smug sundae. Their validity is much as any other argument however.

    But by all means please continue.
     
  15. Jogre

    Jogre It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    Has anyone been appealing to emotion much here?

    I think mostly everyone on this thread has been making rational arguments.

    Also, simply stating that quoting an old document is not the same as making an arguement isn't shifting the goalposts. It's fairly obvious that "This document says so" without any extra reasons isn't a good line of arguement IMO.
     
  16. Risewild

    Risewild Venerable Relic of the Wastes
    Modder Orderite

    Jun 14, 2014
    So if the Army is the defender of the constitution, why do civilians need weapons to pull a coup in the first place? If the government goes bad and unconstitutional, then it is the Army job to stop it, not civilians. That is what I gather from your post. :confused:

    That happens in both sides a lot. For example, many gun owners do not want better regulation and measures in place because they are scared the government will take their guns away, if that is not making arguments based on emotion, fear and anger, then I don't know what it is. They are so scared that they don't even pay attention and dismiss anything the other side says (even when the other side say something good). Same with wanting weapons because the government might turn bad, that is fear-mongering, wanting weapons to protect themselves is also because of fear and emotion.

    Grouping people like that is already quitting to debate and consider themselves superior because their opinion is based on logic and not emotions, while the other side is stupid and emotional. :confused:I see that happening a lot in both sides. Luckily not everyone on either side is like that.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  17. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    yes, they were supported by far-right nationalists, but the Nazi German and Fascist Italian Governments were left-wing government structures.


    and there seem to be some lack of knowledge.

    even up to and including the Civil War, most Cannons were not owned by the Army, they were owned by private citizens. same with Gatling Guns.

    yes, both of those were around before the US Constitution were written. both were allowed to be owned by private citizens because the 2nd amendment guaranteed their right to own them. and using both required nothing more than a horse and a cart to transport them. nowadays we cannot.
     
  18. YeeCop

    YeeCop Just a Sweet Irradiated Transvestite

    281
    Jan 26, 2017
    No, it is the civilians' job to overthrow their tyrannical government. Plus, the military can go bad anytime during a coup and establish martial law.
    The Constitution was written and is currently enacted with John Locke in mind, who wrote in his Two Treatises of Government that citizens are to elect officials who represent them in their government, and if said officials become overly tyrannical, then it is every civilian's duty to overthrow said government officials and/or government.
     
  19. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016
    Yeah, the removal of the division of powers, laying most if not all decisions in all departments of government to a single person and its reduced council is totally a thing those pesky leftists would do. You know, deep down, Kings, dictators, emperors and would-be such are known to be the very nice and progressive folk.

    Actually, the one in the few cases this isn't ironic is in Napoleon's empire. Other than that, nah, you're full of shit :shrug:
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  20. Risewild

    Risewild Venerable Relic of the Wastes
    Modder Orderite

    Jun 14, 2014
    You're confusing me. You say that the army is to uphold and defend the constitution and it will not shoot against civilians that are making a coup, but then you say that it is the civilians job to overthrow their tyrannical government and that the army can go bad... Your words contradict themselves there. Wouldn't a tyrannical government be already against the constitution?
    Or the army upholds the constitution or the civilians do... I guess both could, but your words before and now were that it is one or another. :confused:

    Also every government is tyrannical to someone. Who gets to decide when the government is tyrannical enough to start shooting? Even though many people, minorities, groups, etc keep saying how oppressed they are, keep making protests and marches, etc. Those that revolt against the government are considered criminals and terrorists. Why? Who has the power to decide when a government is tyrannical enough to start shooting and not be considered a terrorist and criminal?


    Something interesting about the bill of Rights is that it says quite a few rights that are not uphold. But no one bats an eye for those... The most blatant is the Amendment IV that says this:
    Speedy and public trial. But there are plenty of closed door trials and plenty that take years to be finalized... This happens everyday but no one bats an eye. The judicial system in the USA is always breaking the Bill of Rights but it doesn't matter because... it's a small thing, who cares if criminals have a speedy and public trial?
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1