Yay, GUNS!

[ecoli]

 

 

Again, though. It's a needless distraction from the central topic. I think we can just accept that some people feel they need guns in case Hitler ever takes over america and tries to come take their twinkies away.

Or Obama

[Iggy]

You mean 7%, not 70%, right?

 

No, I meant 70. The security and prosperity we feel now with 7 is nothing like the desperate insecurity we would feel with 70. I guess I could have been more clear with my position.

 

I didn't say it would never happen.

 

Right. You said that if somebody expresses a distrust in government power (in this topic) then one must necessarily be advocating the overthrow of the government.. Post 359 it is. It's borderline silly.

 

When I said that no body is advocating an overthrow of the current government I was agreeing with you, and doing so for a purpose. I followed it up with the words "I'm sure we would both agree". I don't talk straightforward, but the words "I'm sure we would both agree" should hint that you shouldn't object "I didn't say that".

 

The point has to do with things being so potentially bad in the future that a tyrant could take power, and guns forestalling that outcome. It isn't the best point. I've made better. But it doesn't deserve the misinterpretation you just gave it.

 

 

I was replying to rigney who said basically, "who said anything about overthrowing the government!!"

 

No. Not close. Rigney said that a person attesting "I distrust government power" doesn't imply trying to overthrow the government. It's a perfectly reasonable point, and it's true, and I don't think you should have disagreed. I'll quote what he said,

 

Why is it that when someone uses "mistrust of power" as several of us have done to describe our feelings of government, do some idiots take it literally to mean rebellion and/or overthrow of the structure?

 

I don't trust the government's power to save me when a bear or a psychopath has me cornered in my room. According to you this means I advocate overthrowing the government. It's a way of shutting down debate -- telling people that they can't mention something without being extremest.

 

Again, though. It's a needless distraction from the central topic. I think we can just accept that some people feel they need guns in case Hitler ...

 

"Needless distraction". Another patronizing way of shutting down debate

Edited January 4, 2013 by Iggy

[iNow]

You said that if somebody expresses a distrust in government power (in this topic) then one must necessarily be advocating the overthrow of the government.

No, I said if someone expresses a distrust in government as an argument in favor of guns then it means they feel guns might be needed in an overthrow.

 

The point has to do with things being so potentially bad in the future that a tyrant could take power, and guns forestalling that outcome.

I have never been unclear on this. I'm trying to shutdown debate because we don't seem to disagree, despite forceful attempts suggesting otherwise.

 

Or Obama

Then use your votes, not your bullets. If your arguments cannot convince enough people to vote the same way you do, then perhaps you need better arguments or to alter your position.

[Iggy]

No, I said if someone expresses a distrust in government as an argument in favor of guns then it means they feel guns might be needed in an overthrow.

 

I'm sure that would be a fine argument, but you didn't say or imply it at all. No, you didn't say (or mean) "ban" or "might". You explicitly said "ban or regulate" and your grammar means that the "necessitate" rather than "might". Let me quote what you said to avoid all this,

 

 

[Rigney}

Why is it that when someone uses "mistrust of government" as several of us has done to describe our feeling, idiots take it literally to mean rebellion and/or overthrow of our government. Why?

 

Because that's the ONLY reason someone's stated "distrust of government" becomes relevant in any way in a thread discussing banning or regulating guns.

 

[iNow #359]

 

That has to mean that someone saying "I distrust the government to regulate firearms" necessarily means "I support overthrowing the government" to you. It is non sequitur, not true, and a little silly, and that's why I pointed it out.

 

 

Then use your votes, not your bullets. If your arguments cannot convince enough people to vote the same way you do, then perhaps you need better arguments or to alter your position.

 

I'm not opposed to ballots or bullets. Sometimes one works where the other doesn't Tell the people of Syria to vote.

 

As it happens, I've misspoke more times than can be counted and paid a heavy price for it. I truly believe that upon reflection you meant to say "if someone expresses a distrust in government as an argument in favor of guns then it means they feel guns might be needed in an overthrow.". That would be a reasonable statement and I wouldn't have a problem with it. I object heavily because you didn't say, imply, or later correct yourself to mean, that.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Iggy

[menageriemanor]

I still find it incredibly sad that anyone lives with this expectation that they WILL be attacked/shot/mugged/raped, to the point they feel they need guns, just in case. That is not in the minds of so many in the western world, without a gun culture. Yes violence happens, but so does winning lotteries, IF you bother to buy a ticket. I don't know ANYONE sane, who buys a ticket, then preorders a couple of hundred thousand dollars worth of stuff. Certainly, from middle class city to rural, where I am, gun violence is less of a likelihood to people, than the unrealistic belief they will win a big lottery prize! How many million to one is that?

 

I don't understand why halfish? of Americans think, better to arm up, than actually get a functioning, safe, relaxed society. The gun culture just exudes fearfulness, distrust of their fellow citizens, and so much dysfunction. It is also rather an American view, I've sadly found. Society can be violent, my fellow citizens can be at risk, but as long as I'VE got a good chance of owning bigger/better firepower, I don't care...

 

I do wonder if all the money spent on guns, ammo, lessons, security, had been paid as tax to gov't, how many more mental illness treatment centres there would be, how many more police would be keeping EVERYONE safe.

 

Why grasp at weapons - more and more, with the result of how many accidental or unbalanced partners injuring/killing partners and/or children? Which is more likely? A mad/drug addled gun toting stranger killing OR a family member by accident/deliberatelyshooting and injuring/killing? What is wrong with having to consider the facts of which is more likely, to answer?

 

I think you will find a lot of those who are using legally owned guns in mass slaughters have been free of any record. Many are less than 25. Many are 'weird', 'loners', avoided/laughed at, but there is no official record barring them from gun ownership, or, their parents, knowing their child is odd, sometimes disturbing, still have the incomprehensible attitude that they should have guns in their house. Really? Doesn't sound like giving toddlers access to matches?

 

You disagree that feeling you must own guns is a direct link to fear/distrust of your own citizens or your wildlife? Or your own government?!? Then why do you feel you have to own them?

 

If I have a house on top of a high hill, I'm not going to worry about flood insurance. Your statements of wanting a gun for the first 10 minutes before the police get there SCREAMS underlying fear.

 

To imply that you had parents who taught you that god commanded humans to kill snakes, just HORRIFIES me. No doubt god commanded all Americans to wipe out the passenger pigeon, too. Just makes kindly/educated people CRINGE. You must know there are still Americans with such beliefs? I would happily give up my rights to own guns, just to make sure those people couldn't own them, either..

[iNow]

I'm sure that would be a fine argument, but you didn't say or imply it at all.

Fine, but I've now clarified myself at least three times. I'm done.

 

I'm not opposed to ballots or bullets. Sometimes one works where the other doesn't Tell the people of Syria to vote.

We don't live in Syria. We live in the US, where we DO vote, and where this discussion about guns is happening.

I truly believe that upon reflection you meant to say "if someone expresses a distrust in government as an argument in favor of guns then it means they feel guns might be needed in an overthrow.". That would be a reasonable statement and I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Appreciate that.

[waitforufo]

I think we can just accept that some people feel they need guns in case Hitler ever takes over america and tries to come take their twinkies away.

 

I don't think this statement quite hits the nail on the head. Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II, at the onset of war with the United States is quoted to have said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Any domestic would be tyrant would have the same problem. So citizens of the United States don’t have to worry about Hitler or their twinkies. Would be tyrants and twinkie takers have to worry about us. The second amendment is just part of our checks and balances.

[overtone]

"As iggy pointed out' date=' that is too black and white - the guns normally work by degrees and influences, for prevention not rebellion, and that is what they are thought to work for by their owners"

 

Nope, I think we have to assume that a weapon will be used, otherwise we would just have everyone sit on a nuke. You can't assume a bluff won't be called, especially if its a relatively weak hand.

 

More importantly, when do people use their guns against the government? Is there a document we can reference? Any rules?

 

Rather than a case where all of the government goes bad and most of the populace is sure it is right to rebel, I think it far more likely we will have pockets of unrest and the government cracks down and most people see the crackdown as justified. Worse, we could see two groups, possibly racial or religious go at each other [/quote']

 

The deflection into rebellion against government overlooks the more common type of oppression mediated by governmental disarmament - the creation of a vulnerability to cryptically associated organizations and common thugs.

 

When powers that be disarm peasants, it usually isn't to prevent rebellion against the big national government. It's to create vulnerability to that government's agents and supporters and favored classes.

 

We have, in the US, a clear and present example of that: the disarmament of black people and consequent century long oppression by terrorist organizations in the service of local powers, especially in the former Confederacy, from the late 1860s until the early 1970s. The governments did the disarming, with the full knowledge of the vulnerability so created and the consequences thereof.

 

So it's not really a matter mistrust of government translating into taking up arms "against the government", in practice. It's not that simple. And we are not that long or that far from those days, as the people advocating for keeping gun rights uninfringed are well (often personally) aware.

Edited January 5, 2013 by overtone

[john5746]

Sorry, this video pretty much sums up my thoughts on the "just in case spooky government" arguments.

Edited January 5, 2013 by john5746

[rigney]

Funny John5746, Oh Hell yes! But a takeoff to be associated with Red Neck humor? Hell No! Here are statistics you may look at, while giving you time to get your head out of your crack. And while some of these are a few years old, there are underlying reasons why none of them can be taken as fact. Primarily these are only the licensed gun owners who can in many cases be superimposed as owner, home owner, man, woman etc., diminishinng the number of guns by millions. While these people can be fingered immediately, think of the remaining quarter of a billion or more unregistered guns still out there.

 

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Edited January 5, 2013 by rigney

[Iggy]

Fine, but I've now clarified myself at least three times. I'm done.

 

Very good and well tendered.

 

We don't live in Syria. We live in the US, where we DO vote, and where this discussion about guns is happening.

Appreciate that.

 

As I've explained at least three times: I'm talking about future despots and future despotism. On that future day, votes won't count, and if we disarm the population today then 1) we lose an opportunity to avert the despot's arrival, and 2) we eliminate a means of dealing with despotism if and when it arrives.

 

In my less-humble submission, rebuffing those things mentioned is worth the "temporary insecurity" that we frequently see on the news,,, just like Jefferson said.about those who trade liberty for temporary personal security deserving neither.

[iNow]

And I have not been presenting an argument against that position, so...

 

EDIT: I also took away an interesting realization from John's video link above. We have the NSA engaged in warrantless wiretapping, reading all of our emails, and collecting info on everything we do online. We have people being locked up in secret prisons without trial or charges, and locked up indefinitely. We have citizens of the US being assassinated with drones after merely being labelled terrorists. We have people being given life sentences for smoking a joint, and these are exactly the behaviors that people seem to think the guns will prevent, or be used to stop and nobody is doing anything. There seems to be a short-circuit in the logic somewhere.

Edited January 5, 2013 by iNow

[rigney]

Not to worry! If "kooks" like Al Gore and his ilk keep selling us out to foreign countries while lining their pockets, we won't have to worry too long about despots taking us over. When the last decent jobs have been deported and shipped overseas, collard greens, biscuits and gravy will only go so far.

Edited January 5, 2013 by rigney

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

People arguing that armed citizens with guns will prevent liberties from being taken should watch this video:

 

 

Replace nuclear deterrent with guns and the Soviets with a government taking away your liberties.

[Iggy]

Not to worry! If "kooks" like Al Gore and his ilk keep selling us out to foreign countries while lining their pockets, we won't have to worry too long about despots taking us over.

 

Al Gore was never president. You might be thinking of Bush selling us out to Saudi Arabia. He was all about doing that.

 

In any case, despite the details I disagree with your premise. It is true that if we completely capitulate to a group then we have nothing to fight about with that group. If, for example, we became Muslim and worshiped the ground al-Qaeda walked on then they probably wouldn't try for our blood. But, this assumes that being 'taken over' by a tyrant involves an overt fight which can be avoided by capitulation. I think it's usually the opposite. Both Caesar and Hitler were voted into power. It's the smiley glad-hands you've got the most to worry about in the end.

[MonDie]

It's the smiley glad-hands you've got the most to worry about in the end.

 

Haven't you heard the angry speeches given by Hitler?

As long as people aren't riled up about politics, we should be able to stop corruption without weapons.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[rigney]

Quote #416 Mondays Assignment: Die. Al Gore was never president. You might be thinking of Bush selling us out to Saudi Arabia. He was all about doing that. All I can say Die is : Thank goodness Gore was never president. Imagine the big green footprint he could have made as leader other than this pittance he made by selling his newspaper to Al Jazeera, defraying his overuse of our resources? We know how this slime bag Gore works, so would you elaborate on Bush's selling us out to the Saudis?

[MonDie]

I think you were responding to IGGY.

[Iggy]

Haven't you heard the angry speeches given by Hitler?

 

Sure, but that's just how Germans sound...

 

 

As long as people aren't riled up about politics, we should be able to stop corruption without weapons.

 

3 points.

 

1) Dr. King was riled up about politics and he stopped 'corruption' without weapons. 2) People should be riled up about politics when the political system fails them (eg no taxation without representation, and the Arab spring). 3) The point I keep making is that prosperity breeds functional democracy. If ever (and their are plenty of modern and historical examples) employment gets up to 70% and the state fails to provide and protect then people will be annoyed and that is exactly when tyrants step in and offer something better than the current system with great applause. In that case "stopping corruption with weapons" may well be necessary.

 

You can't vote Caligula, Caesar, or kadafi out of office. As a practical matter it can't be done. You say that these peopole wouldn't be there if not for 'riled up politics', but neither would anything else difficult get done without riled up politics.

 

It is a utopia where tyrants avoid power and guns aren't a problem. But, guns aren't banned in this utopia, they just aren't used for human-human violence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

would you elaborate on Bush's selling us out to the Saudis?

 

 

 

There is too much to type, but I believe this link gets into it pretty heavily,

 

The Bush-Saudi Connection

 

The reason Bush and other US leaders feel beholden to the royal family is relatively simple. Where else would they get oil?

 

The last time we refused to bend over for the Saudis and other smaller Arab countries was 1973. Perhaps you remember the oil embargo and the general crisis that followed. Gore may be less crazy than you think for wanting to be energy self-sufficient.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Iggy

[Moontanman]

His take on Americans is a classic...

[ecoli]

Then use your votes, not your bullets. If your arguments cannot convince enough people to vote the same way you do, then perhaps you need better arguments or to alter your position.

I meant gun owners perceive Obama as taking away an unalienable right to bear arms... which is untrue except at the margins.

 

I would personally never recommend taking up arms against a legitimate gov't, but when human rights are assailed by a tyrannical force, and diplomacy fails, taking up arms is an acceptable recourse. This is how it was done in 1776 (the musical).

[rigney]

I think you were responding to IGGY.

You are absolutely right Die, and I apologise for my error. So, come on IGGY!, give me an answer.

Edited January 5, 2013 by rigney

[Iggy]

You are absolutely right Die, and I apologise for my error. So, come on IGGY!, give me an answer.

 

Can my answer be, please see post #419?

 

I realized you meant me and responded.

[overtone]

1) Dr. King was riled up about politics and he stopped 'corruption' without weapons.

Not without the Black Panthers, he didn't.

 

And his entire campaign was dedicated to liberating an oppressed people - they were oppressed in the first place largely due to being delibrately and overtly and disarmed by their local governments, placing them at the mercy of vigilantes and thugs with weapons and the official wink and nod.

 

The idea is not to find oneself in King's, or say Gandhi's, position.

 

The disarming of black people under Jim Crow was not done to keep them from overthrowing the US government. Taking up arms against tyranny is taking up arms against the petty and local means of tyranny's implementation.

Edited January 5, 2013 by overtone

[Moontanman]

I have to agree, while Dr. King did indeed preach non violence his movement was far from non violent, I will not debate whether it was justified or not, i was too young and too far away from it to know for sure...