So any gun enthusiasts here

[Haggis]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

I would take this risk. The alternative is to allow the police a monopoly on armed firepower and we've all seen how well this can work out. Just ask any group that's been subject to oppression by the powers that be if they'd like to allow the government to be the only armed people.

At the end of the day, that's what the second amendment is all about. Politicians and Internet debaters can go on and on all they like about hunting and self defense, but really, the reason we can own guns in the United States is to make sure that the government can never become more powerful than the people. It's unfortunate that people forget this, as it's a very noble sentiment.

Okay, so if the sole reason to own guns is to counterbalance the government's power, then you need to lock up those weapons and only bring them out in case of a revolution. Leave the shooting of criminals to the police, and leave the hunting to predatory animals.

[Comrade Pants]

Originally Posted by Haggis

Okay, so if the sole reason to own guns is to counterbalance the government's power, then you need to lock up those weapons and only bring them out in case of a revolution. Leave the shooting of criminals to the police, and leave the hunting to predatory animals.

It's one of the reasons. However, hunting and self defense are rights recognized within the United States by the vast majority of states and citizens. Therefore, I really don't see your point.

[Haggis]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

It's one of the reasons. However, hunting and self defense are rights recognized within the United States by the vast majority of states and citizens. Therefore, I really don't see your point.

You stated the reason for owning guns is to make sure the government doesn't get more powerful than the people, implying that the other reasons might be useful applications for guns, but not the reason for owning them.

(Incidentally, that reason seems rather silly to me, as 1) the government has tanks, nuclear weapons, fighter jets, helicopters and so on, so it has a vastly larger amount of power than the people with their flimsy guns, and 2) it seems barbaric and drastic to anticipate an armed rebellion in a supposedly democratic country, where the pen is mightier than any sword, or, indeed, gun.)

[Comrade Pants]

Originally Posted by Haggis

You stated the reason for owning guns is to make sure the government doesn't get more powerful than the people, implying that the other reasons might be useful applications for guns, but not the reason for owning them.

I stated that that was simply the original reason. In time, it evolved to include other purposes. However, the original intent behind allowing the first citizens of the US to own guns was to throw off tyranny, lest it rear its head again.

Originally Posted by Haggis

(Incidentally, that reason seems rather silly to me, as 1) the government has tanks, nuclear weapons, fighter jets, helicopters and so on, so it has a vastly larger amount of power than the people with their flimsy guns, and 2) it seems barbaric and drastic to anticipate an armed rebellion in a supposedly democratic country, where the pen is mightier than any sword, or, indeed, gun.)

1) They didn't when the second amendment was passed. Besides, militaries rarely remain cohesive in rebellions. Any war against the proletariat of the United States would inevitably see swaths of the military join us.

2)
> United States
> Democratic
> Pick one

The law says we're a Republic, first off. If we're any sort of democracy it's a representative democracy which is hardly a true democracy. In any case, what few choices we have are presented to us by the media - owned by the rich and the corporations. What illusions of freedom we have that aren't quickly vanishing are presented to us by the vile traitors who bought our government and are intent on seeing themselves grow richer and richer.

It doesn't matter if you have the best pen in the world, really. If the government has all the guns and the media is controlled for the most part by the enemy, you're quite insignificant. This is why I'm glad I own guns, you see. Some day, people will be pissed off at the status quo. The time will come to serve our enemies their due. When that day comes, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll gladly join in.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

I would take this risk. The alternative is to allow the police a monopoly on armed firepower and we've all seen how well this can work out.

Yeah, the means by which the Japanese oppress their people with their police state is just awful.

Just ask any group that's been subject to oppression by the powers that be if they'd like to allow the government to be the only armed people.

Any group?

But really, the reason we can own guns in the United States is to make sure that the government can never become more powerful than the people.

The government has an army. The people don't even really have militias.

The government has drones.

The government has bombs, nuclear and otherwise.

The government has access to biological weapons.

The government has tanks.

The government has fighter jets.

The government has automatic firearms that can't be legally owned.

The government's yearly "Defense" budget has more than doubled from over 300 billion dollars to over 700 billion dollars.

They're slightly more powerful than Billy Joe Bob and his shack of old pistols and rifles.

[Comrade Pants]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

Yeah, the means by which the Japanese oppress their people with their police state is just awful.

That's a different cultural context, though. I mean, the Japanese government isn't oppressive now, sure, but just because they aren't doesn't mean that the governments of the United States, The Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, and scores more aren't oppressive.

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

Any group?

Yes, any.

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

The government has an army. The people don't even really have militias.

The government has drones.

The government has bombs, nuclear and otherwise.

The government has access to biological weapons.

The government has tanks.

The government has fighter jets.

The government has automatic firearms that can't be legally owned.

The government's yearly "Defense" budget has more than doubled from over 300 billion dollars to over 700 billion dollars.

They're slightly more powerful than Billy Joe Bob and his shack of old pistols and rifles.

See my prior comment on military desertions in rebellions. Notice what's happening in Syria with their military right now, or think back in history to how basically every competent officer - save for a few - and a large chunk of enlisted men deserted the United States army to join the Confederacy and you'll see my point. If the proletariat can legitimize their rebellion, members of the armed forces will join in. Hell, even if they don't, most soldiers I know would refuse to fire on their countrymen.

Oh, and you can legally own an automatic weapon. It's just unreasonably expensive since civilian legal automatic weapons have been legally barred from production thanks to a sneaky last minute amendment to the NFA passed in 1986.

[Secret Fawful]

I'll fire on my countryman in a heartbeat. If they come near my house or pull a gun on me or so much as call me a name I'll open fire faster than Dick Cheney on a hunt. If I see some asshole on the street abusing a woman or one of my family members steps out of line and gets to abusing their kids or some shit I'll open fire on their ass. Don't be talking to me about whether or not people will open fire. I'll shoot you in the ass.

That's why I don't own a gun, because I'm trigger happy.

[Haggis]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

Yes, any.

I doubt it. For one, groups that believe in nonviolent resistance would disagree with you. (If anything, they would want to see no group armed, as opposed to more than one group.)

See my prior comment on military desertions in rebellions. Notice what's happening in Syria with their military right now

And how did that revolution start? With peaceful demonstrations. Not with civilians brandishing guns. Of course it has degenerated into a civil war now, but that almost always happens with revolutions in some degree. And guess what? I doesn't matter if people own guns before it starts, because they'll be supplied with weapons anyway one way or another. In Syria, surrounding countries are supplying the revolutionaries with weapons, and together with parts of the army that have defected, I'd say there's never a need to own weapons in peacetime, if your reason for doing so is an expected revolution.

(Incidentally, I can't help wondering... have you ever considered emigration? Clearly you don't like the way things are going in your country, and I'm sure there must be other idyllic places in the world where the government is more to your liking.)

If the proletariat can legitimize their rebellion, members of the armed forces will join in. Hell, even if they don't, most soldiers I know would refuse to fire on their countrymen.

You just made the perfect point against civilians owning guns in the face of governmental oppression.

Originally Posted by Secret Fawful

I'll fire on my countryman in a heartbeat. If they come near my house or pull a gun on me or so much as call me a name I'll open fire faster than Dick Cheney on a hunt. If I see some asshole on the street abusing a woman or one of my family members steps out of line and gets to abusing their kids or some shit I'll open fire on their ass. Don't be talking to me about whether or not people will open fire. I'll shoot you in the ass.

That's why I don't own a gun, because I'm trigger happy.

I applaud your honesty, and your decision not to own a gun for that reason. If everyone thought like that, we'd live in a perfect world.

[Comrade Pants]

Originally Posted by Haggis

I doubt it. For one, groups that believe in nonviolent resistance would disagree with you. (If anything, they would want to see no group armed, as opposed to more than one group.)

Oh, yes. Peaceful rebellion in the face of tyranny always works so very well. You know, like Tienanmen Square and Occupy and... Oh, wait...

Originally Posted by Haggis

And how did that revolution start? With peaceful demonstrations. Not with civilians brandishing guns. Of course it has degenerated into a civil war now, but that almost always happens with revolutions in some degree. And guess what? I doesn't matter if people own guns before it starts, because they'll be supplied with weapons anyway one way or another. In Syria, surrounding countries are supplying the revolutionaries with weapons, and together with parts of the army that have defected, I'd say there's never a need to own weapons in peacetime, if your reason for doing so is an expected revolution.

You're welcome to you opinion, but I happen to believe that a population trained, pre-equipped, and proficient in the use of firearms is much less likely to be eviscerated by their overlords and are far more likely to prevail.

The likelihood of prevailing against a modern, industrial army is slim, admittedly, but such things have happened before. Conventional wisdom would have seen the ill equipped and ill trained American colonists or Russian and Chinese Communists defeated in their revolutions, but see how they turned out? It's unlikely, but not a futile thing to hope for.

Originally Posted by Haggis

(Incidentally, I can't help wondering... have you ever considered emigration? Clearly you don't like the way things are going in your country, and I'm sure there must be other idyllic places in the world where the government is more to your liking.)

I refuse to leave. I'd love to live, say, in Sweden; but the fact is that for all of my Communist and anarchistic sentiments, I am something of a patriot. I love America. I love the United States. I see no reason why I should leave the land my ancestors helped build to the designs of traitors and inhuman slime like lobbyists and corporatists. That avenue is retreat, and I refuse it.

Originally Posted by Haggis

You just made the perfect point against civilians owning guns in the face of governmental oppression.

I fail to see how I did. I said *most* soldiers. By the time the ones who would shoot start to shoot, I say weapons free and have at 'em. Lines are typically drawn at that point in revolutions and people are typically on the sides that they would gravitate towards. Typically. In any case, by the time lead starts to fly, it's basically a standard guerrilla war.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

Oh, yes. Peaceful rebellion in the face of tyranny always works so very well. You know, like Tienanmen Square and Occupy and... Oh, wait...

You've switched your point from any group who has been tryanized would have wanted guns opposing to their oppressors to peaceful rebellion is impractical. By abandoning your original point you demonstrate poor debate principles.

There are nonviolent groups who would not have the opinion you've hoisted onto them. Whether or not you find the idea practical has no bearing on whether or not it's an idea that they have.

The likelihood of prevailing against a modern, industrial army is slim, admittedly, but such things have happened before. Conventional wisdom would have seen the ill equipped and ill trained American colonists or Russian and Chinese Communists defeated in their revolutions, but see how they turned out? It's unlikely, but not a futile thing to hope for.

The American Revolution really has very little to do with an armed populace and more to do with circumstance and support.

The British were across the globe. With the speed of travel in those days, communication and coordination at higher levels was effectively impossible. We're talking about a political body where the nervous system takes months to get the mind to move a hand, and months for the hand to report that it's on fire.

The British had three OTHER wars to deal with, each providing a greater potential gain AND loss for the country than the American colonial rebellion.

The French supported the colonists early on.

The British were not in the best economic shape at the time.

The colonists had a few really lucky breaks, specifically in Washington and figuring out the whole Benedict Arnold thing before he split off New England and gave control of the Hudson to the British(and potentially handed Washington over on a silver platter, too).

The British were never fighting for the seat of their government. They were fighting for a new but already vestigial limb far from home.

Essentially, the colonists won largely by virtue of timing, circumstance, and luck.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

The law says we're a Republic, first off. If we're any sort of democracy it's a representative democracy which is hardly a true democracy. In any case, what few choices we have are presented to us by the media - owned by the rich and the corporations. What illusions of freedom we have that aren't quickly vanishing are presented to us by the vile traitors who bought our government and are intent on seeing themselves grow richer and richer.

So what you're saying is, that you have a gun 1) for personal security, and 2) to maintain some semblance of personal control (or at least the feeling of control) over something that the government and the rich haven't taken over yet.

and 3) because it's fun.


Is that what you're saying?

[Comrade Pants]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

So what you're saying is, that you have a gun 1) for personal security, and 2) to maintain some semblance of personal control (or at least the feeling of control) over something that the government and the rich haven't taken over yet.

and 3) because it's fun.


Is that what you're saying?

Essentially, yes.

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

You've switched your point from any group who has been tryanized would have wanted guns opposing to their oppressors to peaceful rebellion is impractical. By abandoning your original point you demonstrate poor debate principles.

There are nonviolent groups who would not have the opinion you've hoisted onto them. Whether or not you find the idea practical has no bearing on whether or not it's an idea that they have.

You'll find that I never really switched my point. I merely added that peaceful rebellion is impossible. I maintain that the oppressed would, in the vast majority of circumstances, find solace in the ability to defend themselves.

I wonder how things would have turned out had we been able to arm the Jews, gypsies, and others the Nazis disliked before Hitler rounded them up? I wonder what would have happened if we armed the Manchurians against the Japanese? Unit 731 might not have found things so easy, then. Just things to consider.

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

The American Revolution really has very little to do with an armed populace and more to do with circumstance and support.

The British were across the globe. With the speed of travel in those days, communication and coordination at higher levels was effectively impossible. We're talking about a political body where the nervous system takes months to get the mind to move a hand, and months for the hand to report that it's on fire.

The British had three OTHER wars to deal with, each providing a greater potential gain AND loss for the country than the American colonial rebellion.

The French supported the colonists early on.

The British were not in the best economic shape at the time.

The colonists had a few really lucky breaks, specifically in Washington and figuring out the whole Benedict Arnold thing before he split off New England and gave control of the Hudson to the British(and potentially handed Washington over on a silver platter, too).

The British were never fighting for the seat of their government. They were fighting for a new but already vestigial limb far from home.

Essentially, the colonists won largely by virtue of timing, circumstance, and luck.

Oh yes, because the United States has no enemies at all now and are certainly never bound to be overburdened again. After all, the United States military is just so good at counter insurgency operations, aren't they? I mean, it's done a splendid job ever since Vietnam, right?

Incidentally, I see that you didn't dispute the successes of comrades Lenin and Mao. Interesting.

[Noname215]

I have an uncle who lives in backwoods Louisiana. He says he has neighbors who shoot at anything that moves within five feet of their houses. Now THAT is home defense!

[Comrade Pants]

I bet they don't have to worry about break-ins very often.

[Alcoremortis]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

I bet they don't have to worry about break-ins very often.

Bet they don't have many visitors either.

[Comrade Pants]

Originally Posted by Alcoremortis

Bet they don't have many visitors either.

Eh, I'd take the security. I prefer to meet strangers away from where I keep my pets and the majority of my valuables.

[coolsome]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

Eh, I'd take the security. I prefer to meet strangers away from where I keep my pets and the majority of my valuables.

What about the Pizza man?

[Haggis]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

I wonder how things would have turned out had we been able to arm the Jews, gypsies, and others the Nazis disliked before Hitler rounded them up?

I wonder how things would have turned out if other European countries would have intervened earlier? I wonder what would have happened if the German government didn't make such an epic ******** mess of things when they could have seen trouble brewing from miles ahead. I mean, those Nazi weirdos had their own party army, for goodness' sake!

A lot of things went wrong there, but the arming of Jews and other oppressed groups wasn't the best possible solution. European leaders just completely bungled and majorly misjudged the situation, including German politicians before Hitler came to power.

To get back on topic though, sure, you can arm oppressed groups, but then it turns into a war, and it's about who can hold out the longest. Like a game of chess, if you will, but with human pawns. Sometimes outside intervention, with actual trained soldiers, is better. But in the end, there are only losers in a situation like that.

But this discussion is pretty useless, since most people who own guns do so for the kicks, not to prepare against possible oppression.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by Haggis

Sometimes outside intervention, with actual trained soldiers, is better.

I'm sure the people in the middle east just love our soldiers being there.

[Comrade Pants]

Again, I'm forced to agree with Chyron.

Is this thread Bizarro World?