waitforufo Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) The two biggest expansions of the US government since WWII were by Ronald Reagan and George W Bush. I was not in favor of this expansion. Who worries you more: the people Fox News tells you want big government to run your life and take away your guns, or the people actually expanding government into running your life and actually confiscating your guns whenever they want to? Ah, the Fox News meme. Why is Fox News so important to your political narrative? Why do you watch it? Fox News does't tell me anything. I don't watch. I don't recommended any television news. They are just trying to sell the products of the companies that advertise on their program. They will tell you anything to sell those products. That's their business. Same goes for Daily Kos. I have already mentioned my worries about government so I guess this is a rhetorical question. Here's the mainstream Democratic Party take on the gun confiscation after Katrina, for example: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/21/412007/-Blackwater-The-Great-Dismal-Swamp-Part-III-Katrina# Thank you for proving my point. As I said, " All government seeks to limit liberty." Why do you want less liberty? It won't get you more security. See Ben Franklin quote above. You do realize your political crowd is directly responsible for the "more government" as pictured, right? That's your contribution to the scene there. Yes, I agree. More government is bad no matter who sponsors it. So lets have less of it and keep our guns. Agreed? Edited June 19, 2015 by waitforufo
imatfaal Posted June 19, 2015 Author Posted June 19, 2015 14 on one day wasn't a bad tally by the Royal Irish Constabulary, and makes the claim of 70 total since 1920 even more amazing. The name aside the RIC and the early RUC were quasi-military and I would be surprised if those numbers are accounted for in the 70
Phi for All Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 Why is it that you think human beings have changed since the founding of the United States? Man, that argument is so hollow these days, don't you think? I mean, when you can actually look at the numbers and see that what you've been claiming for so long is just the opposite of reality. The far right have been wearing some pretty heavy blinders if they think it's the left that grows the government. And I noticed you FAILED to answer my question about why it was smart for Reagan to find a non-violent answer to the Soviets, but you think our ultimate answer to facing a corrupt government is to put citizens with rifles up against the US military. I know you aren't afraid to answer, so I wonder why you dodged that one. 1
studiot Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) The name aside the RIC and the early RUC were quasi-military Aren't (nearly) all armed police units quasi military? As a matter of note I had much more confidence and a better relationship with the proper army patrolling Heathrow when I worked there in the 1970s, than I do in the schoolboys with tommyguns, now patrolling Lulsgate. Edited June 19, 2015 by studiot
StringJunky Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 The name aside the RIC and the early RUC were quasi-military and I would be surprised if those numbers are accounted for in the 70 Double it, treble it, quadruple the numbers, the UK statistics still pale next to the US's.
waitforufo Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 Man, that argument is so hollow these days, don't you think? I mean, when you can actually look at the numbers and see that what you've been claiming for so long is just the opposite of reality. The far right have been wearing some pretty heavy blinders if they think it's the left that grows the government. And I noticed you FAILED to answer my question about why it was smart for Reagan to find a non-violent answer to the Soviets, but you think our ultimate answer to facing a corrupt government is to put citizens with rifles up against the US military. I know you aren't afraid to answer, so I wonder why you dodged that one. My argument is not hollow. Please explain how human beings have changed since the 1700's when American liberty was the crowning achievement of the enlightenment? I didn't dodge your question as much as I didn't see the relevance. How many megatons did Ronald Reagan have pointed at the Soviets? How much money was Reagan willing to spend on more advanced weapons to defeat the Soviets. Is that how you define non-violence? When asked if he was afraid of ending detente and restarting the arms race he said "no we'll win." Saying that Reagan was non-violent is a bit of a stretch don't you think? If anything Reagan proved guns work in preserving liberty.
Phi for All Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 My argument is not hollow. Please explain how human beings have changed since the 1700's when American liberty was the crowning achievement of the enlightenment? Oh, please. Do you really think that's clever? What I was referring to was your claim that it's the left who grow the government. You dodge that by saying you didn't approve of the way Reagan and the Bushes grew the government, but you still claim it's the left that does it, while every other metric shows you're wrong. I didn't dodge your question as much as I didn't see the relevance. How many megatons did Ronald Reagan have pointed at the Soviets? How much money was Reagan willing to spend on more advanced weapons to defeat the Soviets. Is that how you define non-violence? When asked if he was afraid of ending detente and restarting the arms race he said "no we'll win." Saying that Reagan was non-violent is a bit of a stretch don't you think? If anything Reagan proved guns work in preserving liberty. My apologies for not explaining myself well enough for you to see the relevance. What I asked was actually why the post-Soviet Reagan is lauded for a socio-economic victory (in rereading it seems pretty clear this is what I meant, no? He couldn't have been lauded for the outcome before the fall, right?), and yet we somehow think our citizen rifles are a good way to defeat the US military wielded by a corrupt government. I didn't miss the fact that you dodged that part of the question in order to mis-address the first part. You may win arguments with these tactics (at least in your own mind), but it doesn't really help the discussion, and I'd really like to have an answer. I understand that there are certain things that make your stance look bad, and you'd prefer not to dwell on them (the Santorum Lament), so just let me know if you won't answer my question so I can move on in the discussion. I'll tell you what, you can leave St Reagan out of it. Just tell me why you think using your guns against the US military is a good tactic should our government turn against us?
waitforufo Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) Oh, please. Do you really think that's clever? What I was referring to was your claim that it's the left who grow the government. You dodge that by saying you didn't approve of the way Reagan and the Bushes grew the government, but you still claim it's the left that does it, while every other metric shows you're wrong. My apologies for not explaining myself well enough for you to see the relevance. What I asked was actually why the post-Soviet Reagan is lauded for a socio-economic victory (in rereading it seems pretty clear this is what I meant, no? He couldn't have been lauded for the outcome before the fall, right?), and yet we somehow think our citizen rifles are a good way to defeat the US military wielded by a corrupt government. I didn't miss the fact that you dodged that part of the question in order to mis-address the first part. You may win arguments with these tactics (at least in your own mind), but it doesn't really help the discussion, and I'd really like to have an answer. I understand that there are certain things that make your stance look bad, and you'd prefer not to dwell on them (the Santorum Lament), so just let me know if you won't answer my question so I can move on in the discussion. I'll tell you what, you can leave St Reagan out of it. Just tell me why you think using your guns against the US military is a good tactic should our government turn against us? You have an interesting way of looking at history. Reagan brought the Soviet Union to its knees through military might. He rolled back the iron curtain to the east side of baltic states. Then to prevent their utter collapse he propped them up to prevent anarchy in the east. All you see is a soci-economic victory? You should spend a little more time reading history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_begin_bombing_in_five_minutes click the audio. Having guns means we will never have to use them against our own military. Having guns tells our government that we the people have the power. That is why we have the second amendment. Edited June 19, 2015 by waitforufo
StringJunky Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 ...I'll tell you what, you can leave St Reagan out of it. Just tell me why you think using your guns against the US military is a good tactic should our government turn against us? I find it absurd to even consider the US government acting that way. I can't see how the machinery you have in place would allow it...it's too mature with plenty of negative feedback mechanisms.
waitforufo Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 I find it absurd to even consider the US government acting that way. I can't see how the machinery you have in place would allow it...it's too mature with plenty of negative feedback mechanisms. Yeah, like the negative feedback that the people will shoot back.
Phi for All Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 Having guns means we will never have to use them against our own military. Having guns tells our government that we the people have the power. That is why we have the second amendment. That's a hope, really, a wish. You're banking on it never happening, just like drivers who tailgate at 65mph hope nobody has to stomp their brakes. You're willing to allow so many Americans to die because of this wishful thinking. This is what I don't understand. We have nukes as a deterrent weapon, yet ultimately we're still very afraid someone who is able to plan around our defenses will set off nuclear devices. Similarly, we think citizen guns keep our government honest (hah!), but you know damn well that if a group of armed citizens decides to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights to protest the government's corruption, the NSA is going to know about them and they're going to be labeled terrorists, and they're going to be dealt with. When the military had the same weapons as the citizens, we would outnumber them easily. If our government was so corrupt that a citizen movement to use guns to protect ourselves from them was formed, do you think it would be as easy as millions of us against thousands of them? The wealthy that want the US to keep the guns/drugs/police/prisons cycle going control the media as well, and it would be so easy for them to spin the movement as domestic terrorism, angry people with guns threatening our communities and our way of life. In short (too late!), an armed citizenry could only win out if we were to organize in secret, and overwhelm any opposition with sheer numbers. The odds of pulling that one off seem pretty slim. I think you, and other guns supporters, don't really believe the 2nd Amendment protects you from your government. I think you know there are a lot of guns out there, and you don't want to be defenseless. What you're really defending is you don't think your citizens can be safe if nobody has a gun, because SOMEBODY will still have a gun. Your stance kills thousands each year so you can imagine you're safer. I find it absurd to even consider the US government acting that way. I can't see how the machinery you have in place would allow it...it's too mature with plenty of negative feedback mechanisms. Of course it wouldn't be the government, it would be people with vested interests using the government, law enforcement, and the National Guard. Our media is privately owned by those with vested interests. The media can define whether an incident involved a freedom fighter or a terrorist. What I'm saying is that being afraid of what your government could be capable of is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is thinking that armed insurrection in this day and age is a viable alternative to working within that mature machinery to find a peaceful solution.
StringJunky Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) Yeah, like the negative feedback that the people will shoot back. You want to defend yourself against your fellow Americans... God bless America! It shows a lack of faith and trust in your fellow citizens. ..... What is unreasonable is thinking that armed insurrection in this day and age is a viable alternative to working within that mature machinery to find a peaceful solution. This is why your system is safe, in the long run, because people can democratically become part of the system and keep it in check. Edited June 19, 2015 by StringJunky
Phi for All Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 This is why your system is safe, in the long run, because people can democratically become part of the system and keep it in check. A metric butt-ton of bucks gets spent here making sure that everyone has an emotional stance on the issue of guns. Nobody listens to each other because we're all screaming about life vs freedom. If we could look at it clinically, we could see that it makes more sense if everyone were unarmed. If we took all the effort we put into defending the right to bear arms, and put it towards better checks and balances within government, we wouldn't need to worry about them. We would have a lot more living Americans, and less grieving families. We just need for some people to wake up and realize it's not 1860 in the US anymore.
StringJunky Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) A metric butt-ton of bucks gets spent here making sure that everyone has an emotional stance on the issue of guns. Nobody listens to each other because we're all screaming about life vs freedom. If we could look at it clinically, we could see that it makes more sense if everyone were unarmed. If we took all the effort we put into defending the right to bear arms, and put it towards better checks and balances within government, we wouldn't need to worry about them. We would have a lot more living Americans, and less grieving families. We just need for some people to wake up and realize it's not 1860 in the US anymore. People just like guns, Phi. The 'protection' is tangible and available on demand. One thought struck about how laughable a patchwork militia against the US military machine is: consider that members of the old Eastern Bloc have asked for military hardware from the US military to manage problems with Russia. Not even most countries have the military capability of the US, so what chance do some guys with manual firearms think they have? Pathetic.isn't it, really? Somebody really needs to hammer this home to the 2nd Amendment worshipping section of the electorate, Edited June 19, 2015 by StringJunky 1
Phi for All Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 One thought struck about how laughable a patchwork militia against the US military machine is: consider that members of the old Eastern Bloc have asked for military hardware from the US military to manage problems with Russia. Not even most countries have the military capability of the US, so what chance do some guys with manual firearms think they have? Pathetic.isn't it, really? If millions of Americans all decided to grab their guns and march on Washington DC, and if they did enough preparation in advance to make sure their intentions to exercise their constitutional rights to stand up against injustice perpetrated by the government were clear and well understood by the citizenry, it might work. I think this is about as likely as everyone in the US giving up their guns all at once. Good grief, if we could flex our citizen muscles like that, we wouldn't need to be armed. Unfortunately, what's much more likely, IF our government was turned against us, is that waitforufo and his pals will be boarded up in their homes, brandishing their assault rifles, screaming about freedom while the drone announces how much time they have to disarm and vacate before it chews them up. This is the reality the NRA ignores every day. When you brandish a weapon, you get an armed response. 2
StringJunky Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 ...Unfortunately, what's much more likely, IF our government was turned against us, is that waitforufo and his pals will be boarded up in their homes, brandishing their assault rifles, screaming about freedom while the drone announces how much time they have to disarm and vacate before it chews them up. This is the reality the NRA ignores every day. When you brandish a weapon, you get an armed response. You nailed it. :They don't even need to shed a drop of blood with drones. I think in a civilised nation like America, the pen, is much more often, mightier than the sword.
waitforufo Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 You want to defend yourself against your fellow Americans... God bless America! It shows a lack of faith and trust in your fellow citizens. It's a lack of faith in human nature. Particularly those in power. You know. Like the police. Isn't that what this topic is all about? I trust my neighbors more than the police. It seem most of the posts in this topic trust neither. But somehow the government is trustworthy? Oh, but only when liberals are in power?
overtone Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 The two biggest expansions of the US government since WWII were by Ronald Reagan and George W Bush.I was not in favor of this expansion. You voted for it. You defend, even celebrate, its perpetrators, and attack their enemies. If we could look at it clinically, we could see that it makes more sense if everyone were unarmed. Including the police and military, of course. That is a separate issue from the one of disarming people, or what is the actual proposal: disarming some people. If we took all the effort we put into defending the right to bear arms, and put it towards better checks and balances within government, we wouldn't need to worry about them. Defending or attacking, equally misplaced effort. The Bill of Rights is after all a key component of those checks and balances, yes? You want to defend yourself against your fellow Americans... Yes. That is the key, not this waste of time distraction about full scale US military assault. And the people who want to do this have - within their living memory - the experience of the role systematically disarming Black people played, the role systematically disarming Red people played, and so forth.
mississippichem Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) People just like guns, Phi. The 'protection' is tangible and available on demand. One thought struck about how laughable a patchwork militia against the US military machine is: consider that members of the old Eastern Bloc have asked for military hardware from the US military to manage problems with Russia. Not even most countries have the military capability of the US, so what chance do some guys with manual firearms think they have? Pathetic.isn't it, really? Somebody really needs to hammer this home to the 2nd Amendment worshipping section of the electorate, This. If you look at gun policy in the US with the intent of reducing gun violence you'll find there's no good argument to keep guns around. The idea that any armed militia of citizens wouldn't get immediately obliterated by the U.S. military is hilariously stupid. You can't justify the second amendment if saving lives is a moral requirement. I own guns and I just like them. I'm not politically active with respect to gun ownership. I don't try to convince anyone why I should have the right to own guns. I enjoy target shooting and I hunt occasionally. Guns are very important in our culture here in the US (as Moontanman has stated) and I think we should frankly stop comparing ourselves with the UK and Europe on this issue. Phi highlights that to allow unrestricted private ownership of guns you have to be willing to allow thousands to die every year. This is absolutely true. I'm just willing to allow that and I'm honest enough to state that explicitly. Edited June 20, 2015 by mississippichem 1
Moontanman Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) This. If you look at gun policy in the US with the intent of reducing gun violence you'll find there's no good argument to keep guns around. The idea that any armed militia of citizens wouldn't get immediately obliterated by the U.S. military is hilariously stupid. You can't justify the second amendment if saving lives is a moral requirement. I own guns and I just like them. I'm not politically active with respect to gun ownership. I don't try to convince anyone why I should have the right to own guns. I enjoy target shooting and I hunt occasionally. Guns are very important in our culture here in the US (as Moontanman has stated) and I think we should frankly stop comparing ourselves with the UK and Europe on this issue. Phi highlights that to allow unrestricted private ownership of guns you have to be willing to allow thousands to die every year. This is absolutely true. I'm just willing to allow that and I'm honest enough to state that explicitly. I keep a gun for home defense, police investigate crimes, they do not prevent them, but I know my gun is not a toy, I do not play with it, I clean and lube it irregularly, the one i currently have has never been shot except at the factory. If i had the money I could see myself collecting certain guns but i have no illusions about being a cowboy or saving the world. I do not carry my gun around outside my own property, generally not even my house. I did point it once at a car full of drug dealers and their associates who were harassing me for turning them in, they immediately stopped driving by pointing pistols at me but that was several years ago in another place. The Sheriff actually advised me to buy a shotgun due to my exposed location and the out of state nature of the drug deal I had ruined. They were eventually arrested and went to jail I moved away and I kept my shot gun, one of many guns I have had owned in my life. I used to hunt squirrels when i was a kid, I bought my first gun when I was around 11 or 12 years old, i went to hardware store are bought it myself and a box of shells for $20, that was almost 50 years ago. I know more than a few people who are obsessed with guns and own guns and probably shouldn't be allowed to own a slingshot but guns have been at least a part of my life pretty much all my life, I never remember having a fascination with guns, they were always there, usually in the open or in a closet. to touch one with out permission was "death" lol, but by asking I was taught to shoot and allowed to handle guns almost whenever I wanted. Guns can be safe, they can be useful tools, I am not a big fan of assault rifles or hand guns although I have owned handguns (actually my wife did) I still think the real problem is people and not guns but a person with a gun is a lot more dangerous than a person with a knife or a ballbat and sane laws controlling guns is something i feel strongly about... BTW, proper training of "Peace Officers" is a big issue and should be addressed in a very aggressive manner... Edited June 20, 2015 by Moontanman
iNow Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 I don't really disagree with either of you, but the underlying assumption seems to be flawed... that these deaths are a natural consequence of our ability to own... Unfortunate, but cannot be avoided. I don't buy that, especially given the prevalence of gun ownership in other countries like Switzerland where the deaths per million are markedly lower than ours. http://www.vox.com/2015/6/20/8544507/gun-murders-ownership-charts
StringJunky Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) I don't really disagree with either of you, but the underlying assumption seems to be flawed... that these deaths are a natural consequence of our ability to own... Unfortunate, but cannot be avoided. I don't buy that, especially given the prevalence of gun ownership in other countries like Switzerland where the deaths per million are markedly lower than ours. http://www.vox.com/2015/6/20/8544507/gun-murders-ownership-charts Given that Canada and the US are neighbours, there is a jarring difference. What elements of Canadian life/law is different from the American way to cause this difference? Edited June 20, 2015 by StringJunky
iNow Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) Perhaps it has something to do with Fox News and AM talk radio and the right-wing blogo-twitter-sphere and their endless barrage of fear-stoking, anxiety-amplifying, terror-alerting propaganda. Edited June 20, 2015 by iNow 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now