Yay, GUNS!

[John Cuthber]

If it comes to a revolution, you may have a point.

 

But for now, it would be better to stop voting for a tyrannically self-serving government.

Banning guns may make a revolution more difficult but not as much as banning critical thinking does.

Voting for more tax cuts for the rich leaves the majority as wage slaves.

 

And yet US politics keeps on veering to the right.

[Iggy]

If it comes to a revolution, you may have a point.

 

Yes, we'll arm ourselves after the revolution. That makes all kinds of sense

 

 

But for now, it would be better to stop voting for a tyrannically self-serving government.

 

I don't think I've ever voted for tyrannical government, so I'm going to ignore that slight.

 

Banning guns may make a revolution more difficult but not as much as banning critical thinking does.

 

Have you just accused me of banning critical thinking? Even if you didn't know... even if you noticed nothing about anything I've said on this site besides this thread... couldn't you guess my position on the first amendment? Couldn't you guess exactly how far the first amendment is from the second? Maybe you cant.

 

Voting for more tax cuts for the rich leaves the majority as wage slaves.

 

I don't think I've ever voted for a tax cut "for the rich", and I'm not sure what a "wage slave" is. You've veered way off topic.

 

And yet US politics keeps on veering to the right.

 

It's actually done the opposite the last couple of elections, yet our commitment to the right to bear arms remains. Imagine that. Something you can't pigeonhole. Ha!

[iNow]

It's actually done the opposite the last couple of elections

Not if you look at the House of Representatives and legislatures in the states... or state governors for that matter.

[Moontanman]

Not if you look at the House of Representatives and legislatures in the states... or state governors for that matter.

 

I can't speak to other states but North Carolina has not only continued to veer to the right it has driven off the cliff and is in a death plunge into the black hole of religious dominionism, they actually changed the state constitution to invalidate civil unions to make sure gay people could never marry. The law proscribing a state religion was only narrowly defeated and is expected to be submitted again, creationism is widely held as science superior to evolution. I live in a relatively liberal part of the state and the crazies are gaining ground here as well....

[iNow]

North Carolina is specifically referenced in this article that describes the rightward trend of legislatures and statehouses and how frequently they can be found catering to the extremist minorities despite the majority of americans trending leftward in their views and supported positions:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/rightwing-donors-fuel-america-culture-wars

[Iggy]

Not if you look at the House of Representatives and legislatures in the states... or state governors for that matter.

 

But, yes if you look at the Senate and executive. I figure senate trumps house and president trumps governor. Nonetheless, I take your point -- the right's flirtation with tea party crazy is troubling beyond words. Frightening, really.

[Moontanman]

But, yes if you look at the Senate and executive. I figure senate trumps house and president trumps governor. Nonetheless, I take your point -- the right's flirtation with tea party crazy is troubling beyond words. Frightening, really.

 

The Tea Baggers are nothing but minions of the Koch brothers. The Tea Party was not a grass roots movement it was designed and orchestrated by the Koch brothers...

 

[John Cuthber]

Yes, we'll arm ourselves after the revolution. That makes all kinds of sense

 

 

 

I don't think I've ever voted for tyrannical government, so I'm going to ignore that slight.

 

 

Have you just accused me of banning critical thinking? Even if you didn't know... even if you noticed nothing about anything I've said on this site besides this thread... couldn't you guess my position on the first amendment? Couldn't you guess exactly how far the first amendment is from the second? Maybe you cant.

 

 

I don't think I've ever voted for a tax cut "for the rich", and I'm not sure what a "wage slave" is. You've veered way off topic.

 

 

It's actually done the opposite the last couple of elections, yet our commitment to the right to bear arms remains. Imagine that. Something you can't pigeonhole. Ha!

"Yes, we'll arm ourselves after the revolution. That makes all kinds of sense"

No it doesn't, but you are the only one who said it, so either you are talking nonsenses or it's another strawman.

It really would be better if you stopped doing that.

"I don't think I've ever voted for tyrannical government, so I'm going to ignore that slight." someone did. Unfortunately English doesn't distinguish You plural from you singular.

However, as only one of the interpretations makes sense I wonder why you chose the other.

"I don't think I've ever voted for a tax cut "for the rich", and I'm not sure what a "wage slave" is. You've veered way off topic."

might it be better to find out what I mean before saying it's off-topic?

 

"It's actually done the opposite the last couple of elections,"

No it hasn't

http://my.firedoglake.com/cenkuygur/tag/ronald-reagan/

[overtone]

 

It's actually done the opposite the last couple of elections, yet our commitment to the right to bear arms remains.

I doubt an overall evaluation of US politics would show any Federal level movement "to the left", even a temporary blip, since 1978.

 

A pause in the long slide toward rightwing authoritarianism is not a leftward motion. Neither is a left/right neutral movement toward or away from authoritarianism.

 

And of course there is plenty of support for the right to bear arms on the left, among the libertarian factions (the majority of lefties, in the US).

 

The reason we can't get reasonable gun regulation in the US is not because the Constitution forbids it, but because it's an actually polarized, "both sides do it", pox on both their houses, issue - maybe the only one of any importance. Usually that's chaff put out to obscure the disreputable and misbegotten behavior of some political faction confronting the sane and competent. But here we have crazy all around.

[Iggy]

The Tea Baggers are nothing but minions of the Koch brothers.

 

I prefer to think of tea baggers as having some kind of evil emperor behind them. Some kind of dark Palpatine directing things in the dark. But, the idea that there are two of them somehow doesn't work. It breaks my stride. Caligula never would have had a brother named with him, if you know what I mean. That kind of evil doesn't share. The evil Sith lord has the unbecoming servant, Anakin. One of them is the evil target, the emperor, and the other is to be later redeemed.

 

I need to know which of these two brothers are to be rooted for and which are to be rooted against. We're going to have to root for one of them. George Lucas demands it!

 

 

 

 

"Yes, we'll arm ourselves after the revolution. That makes all kinds of sense"

No it doesn't, but you are the only one who said it, so either you are talking nonsenses or it's another strawman.

It really would be better if you stopped doing that.

 

I think you've outfoxed me. I think you said that if it comes to a revolution then, yes, we'd best be armed for it. Maybe you didn't mean that at all. Let me ask you directly... Let's see how well on this hook you are...

 

 

Do you favor the Syrians who are currently being slaughtered arm themselves before this revolution, or some time after now? When exactly are you willing to grant them a gun? I mean to ask you directly, When you said "If it comes to a revolution, you may have a point", did you mean before or after the revolution? Are you recommending that people arm themselves after the revolution? Is that what those exact words meant?

 

Please answer me directly. When you recommended that a person be armed "if it comes to a revolution" did you mean that they should arm themselves before or after? Please tell me one word or another. Please say "before" or "after". Please give me that curtsy for clarity.

[John Cuthber]

The point I made was that it was better not to vote in a tyrannical or dictatorial government.

"When you said "If it comes to a revolution, you may have a point", did you mean before or after the revolution?"

As I have already pointed out, if it were to come to a revolution in the US the army would win. Of course, I think that they know the difference between right and wrong so they would side with the people rather than the tyrants.

I'm a little disappointed that you have so little faith in them that you think your would need your own guns.

If you don't trust the army, why did you let them have guns?

 

"I think you said that if it comes to a revolution then, yes, we'd best be armed for it. Maybe you didn't mean that at all."

If you look, you will see that I didn't say that

It's the last of your stawmen that I'm bothering to point out.

Let me know if you plan to come back with any valid points.

 

"Please give me that curtsy for clarity."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/curtsy

 

Still, if you absolutely must have an answer that says "before or after" then the answer is before. A long time before, long enough that they can be trained and experienced.

Like the army.

Or, do you somehow feel that you can do a better job of defending the interests of the people of the US than the US army ?

 

(For the record, I said army, I don't wish to exclude the other military forces and the police etc. It's just that your system is a bit complicated with things like the national guard, so I'm using "army" in a very general sense)

[iNow]

I do find the idea that you're going to defend yourself against the military with your basement or closet full of nifty rifles and shotguns to be a bit absent from reality... Stupid, really if I'm being honest.

 

We've seen massively armed groups and militias... armed and trained per person more heavily than anyone in this thread, and probably many combined, I'm sure... get taken down relatively quickly by the military when push comes to shove. It's such a ridiculously silly argument and shows that connection with reality is not required in this debate.

 

Maybe if your neighbors come knocking on your door with pitchforks wanting to steal your shit and rape your woman, sure... You have a better chance against them if you have some sort of arsenal, but to think that same arsenal is going to protect you from the US military (which spends more on military than countries with the next 10 biggest military budgets combined) is ludicrous in the extreme.

[John Cuthber]

"Maybe if your neighbors come knocking on your door with pitchforks wanting to steal your shit and rape your woman, sure... You have a better chance against them if you have some sort of arsenal,"

And don't forget that you decided to let them have an arsenal too: bigger than yours if they happen to have the money...

[Iggy]

Still, if you absolutely must have an answer that says "before or after" then the answer is before.

Fair enough. Very honest.

The point I made was that it was better not to vote in a tyrannical or dictatorial government.

"When you said "If it comes to a revolution, you may have a point", did you mean before or after the revolution?"

As I have already pointed out, if it were to come to a revolution in the US the army would win. Of course, I think that they know the difference between right and wrong so they would side with the people rather than the tyrants.

I'm a little disappointed that you have so little faith in them that you think your would need your own guns.

If you don't trust the army, why did you let them have guns?

I don't think it's that simple.

 

There was a news story today, I barley caught a couple minutes of it, but apparently someone was stabbed on a London street. The motive was religious. I'm sure you know far more about it than I do, but the part that caught my attention was that they had to bring in riot police. Someone is brutally murdered in the street, and therefore... the riot police are needed. There is something very wrong with that.

 

It's not something I can articulate exactly. It is in our human nature to feel like time does very little to change the big things. The forms of government. The values. The things that center our lives. It is not in our nature to feel daily like these things are under threat, but history documents the absolute certainty that they constantly are.

 

You don't know the powder keg upon which you're sitting until it ignites, and if someone tells you that a gun does nothing to solidify your safety against the inevitable, then I simply don't recognize by what right they can say that. I currently have the right to disagree. You do not. I therefore place my trust in my neighbor, my community, and my ability to fight for it, and hope that your trust in your riot police is not unfounded.

[overtone]

All the stuff about the army is irrelevant. As the red, black, yellow, and reaching farther a few currently white groups have experienced in the United States, the Jews and others elsewhere, oppression by force is not generally introduced by the army - the army is not the problem, and taking up arms against the military power of the nation is not the issue.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

There was a news story today, I barley caught a couple minutes of it, but apparently someone was stabbed on a London street. The motive was religious. I'm sure you know far more about it than I do, but the part that caught my attention was that they had to bring in riot police. Someone is brutally murdered in the street, and therefore... the riot police are needed. There is something very wrong with that.

.

 

You don't know the powder keg upon which you're sitting until it ignites, and if someone tells you that a gun does nothing to solidify your safety against the inevitable, then I simply don't recognize by what right they can say that. I currently have the right to disagree. You do not. I therefore place my trust in my neighbor, my community, and my ability to fight for it, and hope that your trust in your riot police is not unfounded.

I agree that the riot police's involvement is worrying- I think it's related to the current government who don't seem too concerned about the will of the people. (In case you are wondering, strictly speaking, nobody did vote them in)

 

It's not by right that I tell you that a gun in your house is more likely to kill someone you love than a villain. It's because that's what the numbers say.

and It's, again, disappointing, that you feel some sort of armed struggle is "inevitable".

[Iggy]

It's not by right that I tell you that a gun in your house is more likely to kill someone you love than a villain. It's because that's what the numbers say.

and It's, again, disappointing, that you feel some sort of armed struggle is "inevitable".

 

He he. Yes, armed struggle is unfortunately inevitable as part of human nature. I would that I could change humanity, but I realistically feel that humans will be human for some time to come.

 

No, I think we would agree, a villain with a gun is more likely to kill than a villain without one. Also, maybe you could agree, a good and moral and decent and responsible person with a gun is more likely to kill in self defense than with malicious intent. I think we're just stressing different points. I trust that there are more good and moral and decent people than not. I trust, at least, that my neighbors are more responsible with their guns than with their vote. That may sound odd, but I think it's true and healthy.

 

In any case, there is no disagreement...

 

I will kill the villain with my gun. You will not. You cannot, and I do look around the world and at history and wonder where that will ultimately leave you.

 

Besides, I think I buried the lead...

 

I agree that the riot police's involvement is worrying- I think it's related to the current government who don't seem too concerned about the will of the people. (In case you are wondering, strictly speaking, nobody did vote them in)

 

Nobody... you mean, nobody voted your current government in? This is the first I've heard that. It doesn't seem possible. How do you mean?

Edited May 23, 2013 by Iggy

[CharonY]

Also, maybe you could agree, a good and moral and decent and responsible person with a gun is more likely to kill in self defense than with malicious intent

 

I think the point he wants to stress is that under the current conditions in many countries that getting killed accidentally is much more likely than killing in self-defense (at least nowadays).

[Iggy]

I think the point he wants to stress is that under the current conditions in many countries that getting killed accidentally is much more likely than killing in self-defense (at least nowadays).

 

and I don't disagree. Could I make that more plain?

 

Let me quote a previous post of mine in this thread. A very long thread...

 

 

The point is that these facts from the OP's article...

 

4. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

 

6. Gun control is not politically popular.

 

...are not necessarily discordant. People who continue to argue "Gun control should be politically popular because more guns leads to more homicides" are missing something fundamental about the political and cultural landscape.

 

We're just stressing different points. Neither, necessarily, disagreeing.

[John Cuthber]

 

Nobody... you mean, nobody voted your current government in? This is the first I've heard that. It doesn't seem possible. How do you mean?

The government is a coalition between two parties with nothing in common except a desire for power.

And, since you only get to vote for one party, nobody voted for both; therefore nobody voted for the government.

[Iggy]

The government is a coalition between two parties with nothing in common except a desire for power.

And, since you only get to vote for one party, nobody voted for both; therefore nobody voted for the government.

 

Oh, ok. I've gotcha. I think I've heard that issue raised in relation to Israel once or twice. No party necessarily had a majority, but there is a coalition. A parliament thing. I have to plead ignorance, but I'm sure the system has its pluses and minuses. It sounded strange when you said it, but I think I see where you're coming from.

[John Cuthber]

A coalition per se isn't a logical problem.

We currently have a coalition between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

A couple of minutes with a dictionary should have led them to realise that was a bad idea.

 

I'd be happy to explain further but I think it's off topic enough.

So, once more the point about

"I think we would agree, a villain with a gun is more likely to kill than a villain without one."

is that, for some reason, you don't see why that's a good reason to not let the villains have the guns.

Since you can't identify the villains (and loonies) in advance, the only practical way to achieve that desirable state of affairs is to not give anyone guns.

 

It works quite well- you mentioned the loonies with a machete killing some guy in London.

They were subsequently stopped by a well regulated militia called the police.

As I understand it, nobody else was harmed. The "alleged" attackers are under arrest and so, not only will they answer for their crimes, but there's a reasonable chance that we will find out who convinced them that such an attack was a good idea. That's likely to help prevent further, similar attacks.

Do you think that would have happened in a country where lots of people had guns?

 

It's particularly telling to look at what did happen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-first-person-account

[overtone]

 

They were subsequently stopped by a well regulated militia called the police.

Why the insistence on such errant BS? Police are not militia. National Guards are not militia, Coast Guards are not militia, Navys and Air Forces are not militia. Armies are not militia. Mercenary oufits like Blackwater are not militia. The writers of the Constitution knew what a militia was, and chose the term deliberately.

 

And by "well regulated", the writers of the Constitution referred to the arms and other equipment as well as the organization of the actual militias they - men well experienced in oppression both as victms and perps - regarded as necessary for the establishment of a free people.

 

 

Since you can't identify the villains (and loonies) in advance, the only
practical way to achieve that desirable state of affairs is to not give
anyone guns.

And that, whether you recognize it or not, would be a reductio ad absurdum argument against trying to keep loonies and villains from obtaining guns.

 

That's the argument the NRA is currently making in the US - that since nothing can be done about the loonie and villain gun violence without confiscating everyone's guns, such must be the agenda of the gun control advocates.

 

 

I think the point he wants to stress is that under the current
conditions in many countries that getting killed accidentally is much
more likely than killing in self-defense (at least nowadays).

And the near irrelevance of that bit of information is somehow invisible to an entire faction of gun control advocates - which breeds wariness and suspicion and resistance among people who can see (with examples such as seat belt laws and helmet laws and child safety restrictions and so forth) that this gap in their thinking is a hazardous entry for illegitmate government coercion.

 

Guns successfully employed in self protection seldom kill bad guys. That's not how they usually work, when they work. Bad guys killed is not a measure of successful self protection via firearm. Hollywood fantasy is not an argument for anyone in this issue.

 

[Iggy]

A coalition per se isn't a logical problem.

We currently have a coalition between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

A couple of minutes with a dictionary should have led them to realise that was a bad idea.

 

Yeah, It would make for a good sitcom though.

 

I'd be happy to explain further but I think it's off topic enough.

 

No, please... I probably sound glib and uneducated enough

 

I think most of the democratized world probably operates under a system where such a situation could be a reality, so I'm sure it has its benefits. I hope I didn't sound dismissive. I should purchase my own education on the topic.

 

So, once more the point about

"I think we would agree, a villain with a gun is more likely to kill than a villain without one."

is that, for some reason, you don't see why that's a good reason to not let the villains have the guns.

 

Exactly!

 

I can't deny your deduction. It is not a sufficient reason to deny everyone (including the villain) a gun.

 

I'm willing to take the risk. I'm willing to accept that the odd villain will be armed if it means that the majority of the populace is also so armed, and capable of critical thought, and able and willing to act on their own behalf. I wouldn't deny the latter to be safe of the former. I mean... I really couldn't. I couldn't take the shotgun from the farmer who is an hour away from the nearest cop so that I could sleep a little safer at night. I couldn't take the rifle from the rancher who only has in his mind that he *has* to kill the occasional cougar or else he'll lose his livestock. I can't take that rifle for my own safety. I don't have that right. It would be tyrannical of me to try, even for the sake of my own safety.

 

Since you can't identify the villains (and loonies) in advance, the only practical way to achieve that desirable state of affairs is to not give anyone guns.

 

Right.

 

It works quite well- you mentioned the loonies with a machete killing some guy in London.

They were subsequently stopped by a well regulated militia called the police.

As I understand it, nobody else was harmed. The "alleged" attackers are under arrest and so, not only will they answer for their crimes, but there's a reasonable chance that we will find out who convinced them that such an attack was a good idea. That's likely to help prevent further, similar attacks.

Do you think that would have happened in a country where lots of people had guns?

 

It's particularly telling to look at what did happen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-first-person-account

 

I hesitate to comment further on that. The police did right. They can't be faulted. I heard more of the story today, and my heart goes out. I probably shouldn't have used that as an example. It's exploitative... but... here we are...

 

There is a cultural difference, and it's very hard for me to articulate. As tragic as it is, what happened there couldn't happen here. You can't murder someone in the streets then hang around for a half hour explaining yourself to everybody. Of course you'd be shot. More likely, you'd be beaten senseless by the first three guys to bump into you before anyone has the chance to shoot you.

 

And the camera guy starts to take his side? And the riot police? After an incident like that the community should be out joining arms, singing hymns, and praising the value of community against such barbarism with honest to god tears in their eyes. People should be applauding the cops.

 

In any case, It's hard for me to articulate. But, I think you should be maybe a little more worried than you seem to be.

[john5746]

There is a cultural difference, and it's very hard for me to articulate. As tragic as it is, what happened there couldn't happen here. You can't murder someone in the streets then hang around for a half hour explaining yourself to everybody. Of course you'd be shot. More likely, you'd be beaten senseless by the first three guys to bump into you before anyone has the chance to shoot you.

I disagree, I think London's like any other big city. I just think in the US, more likely the guy would use a gun.