Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,092 Year: 973/14,231 Month: 973/1,514 Week: 6/234 Day: 6/36 Hour: 1/2


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1590 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 286 of 310 (669683)
08-01-2012 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Artemis Entreri
08-01-2012 11:50 AM


Re: summation..why? this thread is great.
to keep the government honest, to keep some power with the people. To live in a way that is completly oppostie to how they were living as a british colony, and to make sure that it never happened again.
The main problem is that governments aren't honest, because they know how to manipulate large numbers in terms of election theory. An armed populace has not lead to honesty in American politics, as the amount of honesty in American politics is as minimal as possible. Nor has it served as much a dissuasion from corruption, denying people rights, acquiring ever more powers to spy on the population. Sometimes I wonder if the only thing the American people would revolt over is gun ownership - 'We need our guns to stop the government gettin' our guns!'
American tyranny will probably come at the consent of the People - much like German tyranny in the 20th Century. I doubt anyone is going to try a military coup or a 'people's' revolution.
I think they are called RPGs in todays vernacular.
I think RPGs are generally the Soviet ones, the ones the 'bad guys' use. The good guys use LAWs I think these days, though bazookas too I think (Rocket Launcher M1 and variants, the M9 and others). But I'm no military geek, so I could be wrong.
I find it extremely interesting that liberals fully support certain states to regulate firearms (something in the constitution)
I don't care who regulates them, but sure I'm happy for the states to do their own regulating.
but deny those same states to regulate marriage
I'm perfectly content for the states to regulate marriage. As long as they do it within the realms of federal law. For instance, I would oppose a state that said that only white people could marry, and my argument would probably look very much like the argument that states should allow gay marriage.
or displays of religion
Again, as long as the states regulations are lawful, I'm fine with them regulating the displays of religion.
The current consensus among the judicial branch seems to be that governments cannot display religious items that could be construed as promoting one religion etc. So the states regulations should reflect this.
I hope to continue to participate in interesting threads like this one, thank you EvC.
We've done gay marriage, gun control, abortion, the liberal media, and whatever else has struck as sufficiently interesting to discuss. I look forward to seeing future posts from you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-01-2012 11:50 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by dronestar, posted 08-01-2012 3:07 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 20793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 287 of 310 (669684)
08-01-2012 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Jon
08-01-2012 1:37 PM


Re: Wha??
Jon writes:
As I already said:
"All people should be equally empowered."
And it has already been pointed out that that's impossible. Are you advocating futile terrorist acts against an overwhelmingly superior tyranny?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 1:37 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 3:32 PM ringo has not replied

  
dronestar
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 1396
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(3)
Message 288 of 310 (669693)
08-01-2012 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Modulous
08-01-2012 1:40 PM


Re: summation..why? this thread is great.
Mod writes:
American tyranny will probably come at the consent of the People
Well, . . . to be more specific, . . . MANUFACTURED consent.
(hooray for the corporate media with ties to big business and the government, . . . hooray, hooray, hooray)
Manufacturing Consent - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2012 1:40 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 310 (669696)
08-01-2012 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by ringo
08-01-2012 1:56 PM


Re: Wha??
And it has already been pointed out that that's impossible.
Where? Who pointed it out? And why's it impossible?
Are you advocating futile terrorist acts against an overwhelmingly superior tyranny?
I'm advocating precisely what I say I'm advocating.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by ringo, posted 08-01-2012 1:56 PM ringo has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 454 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 290 of 310 (669698)
08-01-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Jon
08-01-2012 12:56 PM


Re: Democracy 101
Jon writes:
Please learn to read.
Oh stop being sily.
Jon writes:
I never stated that I support a 'superpower strength US military'.
I never specifically said YOU did.
Jon writes:
Nor have I argued that any single individual should hold power equal to that of an entire nation's military forces.
You have argued that the citizenry should bear arms such that they are capable of taking on the government military.
So tell me - Do you think the citizenry should have access to the same level of armament that the military has access to?
What level of armament do you think the US military should be eqipped with? Tanks? Subs? Missiles? Fighter jets? Nukes? Smart bombs? Bio tech weapons?
Jon writes:
Whatever would be necessary to defend against an armed government.
What level of armament yom think the military should be equipped with and would you advocate the citenzenry matching that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 12:56 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 6:59 PM Straggler has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 291 of 310 (669703)
08-01-2012 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Straggler
08-01-2012 12:46 PM


Re: Democracy 101
I find this entire argument that a citzenry should be armed to the point that it can remotely hope to match the firwepower of it's own government bewildering, bizzarre and (more to the point) unrealistic to the point of nonsensical.
I don't think that's what the 2nd Amendment means. Its not that the People will bear enough arms to win in a battle against the military; its that the federal goverment is dissuaded from oppressing the People when they're armed.
If the citizens don't have guns, you can pretty much push them around into anything, but if they are armed then that limits a lot of what you can do without it ending up in killing them (like forcing them out of their homes or something). And the government has a vested interest in its civilians being alive.
The Founders thought that the security of the free state depended on the People being armed. That goes for foreign invasion too. Or a large disaster, or something. Its not just about the government.
Why not (for example) bazookas?
They're too dangerous. There's reasonable limitations to what arms should be allowed. Destructive Devices (think explosions) are on the no-no list.
Here's the wiki link on DD's:
Destructive device - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2012 12:46 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2012 9:17 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 310 (669704)
08-01-2012 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Straggler
08-01-2012 3:37 PM


Re: Democracy 101
Do you think the citizenry should have access to the same level of armament that the military has access to?
A better question is: Should there even be a 'military'?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2012 3:37 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2012 11:02 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 293 of 310 (669721)
08-01-2012 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Jon
08-01-2012 6:59 PM


Re: Democracy 101
Do you think the citizenry should have access to the same level of armament that the military has access to?
A better question is: Should there even be a 'military'?
No, that question is way stupider.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 6:59 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 294 of 310 (669737)
08-02-2012 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Jon
07-31-2012 10:20 PM


Re: Democracy 101
All people should be equally empowered.
That's the point of a democracy.
So, to return to my specific question, do you think the Mafia should be "empowered" to stand off the government if so they please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Jon, posted 07-31-2012 10:20 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Jon, posted 08-02-2012 8:51 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 295 of 310 (669738)
08-02-2012 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Artemis Entreri
08-01-2012 11:50 AM


Re: summation..why? this thread is great.
I really enjoyed this topic it is a shame it is getting shut down. I am quite suprised that this topic would even exist on such a liberal website, but it was the pleasant sort of suprise. I find it extremely interesting that liberals fully support certain states to regulate firearms (something in the constitution), but deny those same states to regulate marriage (something that is not in the constitution), or science education, or displays of religion; I find the double standard very interesting, and quite illogical.
What a load of toss, my dear chap. Might I suggest that if you don't know what liberals think or why they think it, you could always ask one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-01-2012 11:50 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 310 (669748)
08-02-2012 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2012 4:11 AM


Re: Democracy 101
So, to return to my specific question, do you think the Mafia should be "empowered" to stand off the government if so they please?
The Mafia is not a person.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2012 4:11 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 454 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 297 of 310 (669749)
08-02-2012 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by New Cat's Eye
08-01-2012 6:40 PM


Re: Democracy 101
I'm glad you are not one of those advocating civilian guns as some sort of method of holding the national military at bay.
But the alternative reasons you give for gun ownership don't make much more sense really. For example is there any evidence that governments in places where guns are not widely available (e.g. the UK) go round forcing people out of their homes and suchlike? Is it really because people own guns that the US government doesn't generally do such things? In states where guns are more controlled does this happen more?
CS writes:
The Founders thought that the security of the free state depended on the People being armed.
I'm sure they did. But all the evidence of modern Western democratic states suggests that people being armed really isn't necessary to that end.
Straggler writes:
Why not (for example) bazookas?
CS writes:
They're too dangerous.
Well how dangerous is "too dangerous"...? Death rate stats in the US suggest that guns are "too dangerous" don't they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2012 6:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Jon, posted 08-02-2012 9:35 AM Straggler has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 298 of 310 (669750)
08-02-2012 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Straggler
08-02-2012 9:17 AM


Re: Democracy 101
For example is there any evidence that governments in places where guns are not widely available (e.g. the UK) go round forcing people out of their homes and suchlike?
Just because such things aren't happening right now is irrelevant to the point.
Your failure to learn history is not evidence in this thread.
But all the evidence of modern Western democratic states suggests that people being armed really isn't necessary to that end.
Of course that's what it suggests. That's why we have all these democracies, after all, because unarmed people nicely petitioned their monarchs a couple hundred years ago or so for their independence and it was expediently granted.
Get real!
People don't need guns in a democracy so long as the democracy remains democratic. But what happens when those in power decide they want just a little more power? Or a lot more power? What happens when a democracy stops being a democracy and starts being a dictatorship... and then a tyranny?
How do the people stand up and say 'enough is enough' when they've nothing to stand on?
Death rate stats in the US suggest that guns are "too dangerous" don't they?
No. Because despite repeated requests by crashfrog, no one in this thread has yet laid out the mechanism by which guns cause people to commit violent crimes. A better conclusion to draw from statistics on violent crime is that the U.S. is a violent country. After all, it is people who commit those crimesnot guns with legs.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2012 9:17 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by foreveryoung, posted 08-02-2012 10:05 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 300 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2012 10:37 AM Jon has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 299 of 310 (669751)
08-02-2012 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Jon
08-02-2012 9:35 AM


jon writes:
No. Because despite repeated requests by crashfrog, no one in this thread has yet laid out the mechanism by which guns cause people to commit violent crimes. A better conclusion to draw from statistics on violent crime is that the U.S. is a violent country. After all, it is people who commit those crimesnot guns with legs.
Yes, the United States has a population that is violent prone. Repressed peoples in socialist states have many of these primal drives removed. If you know you have very little chance to move up in class because you do not have political connections and know the right people, your drive to excel is sapped and you resort to drink and be satisfied with your excessive vacation time allotted you and your free medical care and perhaps shoot up some heroine...anything to remove to dull existence of socialistic life. There is nothing in that lifestyle to cause any violent tendencies in the population.
Edited by Voltaire30, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Jon, posted 08-02-2012 9:35 AM Jon has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 454 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 300 of 310 (669752)
08-02-2012 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Jon
08-02-2012 9:35 AM


Re: Democracy 101
Jon writes:
But what happens when those in power decide they want just a little more power?
Well in recent times they foster a climate of fear against a rather vague and never ending threat and then take it in the name of national security.
Jon writes:
How do the people stand up and say 'enough is enough' when they've nothing to stand on?
If you think the citizenry owning pistols and suchlike is "something to stand on" then we are back to your idiotic advocacy of Joe the plumber and his buddies taking on the military might of a superpower again.
Do you think the citizenry should have access to the same level of armament that the military has access to?
The US military is equipped with tanks, subs, missiles, fighter jets, nukes, smart bombs, biotech weapons and heaven alone knows what else.
What level of armament do you think the citizenry needs to match that?
Jon writes:
Get real!
Quite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Jon, posted 08-02-2012 9:35 AM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023