Topic: gun control

[Rob]

Godwins law...

[micah]

i'm sensing a hint of sarcasm.

[micah]

Godwins law

had to wiki that.

I agree that nazi comparisons are WAY over used on the Internet -- usually their called into play when comparing the president to Hitler or the CIA to the Nazi Secret Police...

... but in my case I am correct.

Hitler banned handguns during his rise to power and took guns away from law abiding citizens.  At the time, I'm sure everybody thought it was a good idea until he started rounding folks up.

and no, i don't think we need to worry about that this country but it is a valid argument.

[Govtcheez]

> no, i don't think we need to worry about that this country but it is a valid argument.

No, it's really not.  There are plenty of things in place in this country to prevent anything like that happening.

[Ken Fitlike]

Guns are better than rocks if you need to get seriously aggressive on the revolutionary front. In any event, no 'revolutionary' force of civilians would engage in a pitched battle against a superior force because that would be suicidal. (Actually, I can think of one instance - the Battle of Dunbar where the Covenanters who fought against Cromwell gave up every strategic advantage imaginable to fight a pitched battle against the New Model Army because 'God was our side'. Needless to say, Cromwell arse-fucked them sideways).

Speaking of which(suicidal strategy, that is), suicide bombers have been pretty effective in delivering damage disproportionate to their apparent means so far. Also, there isn't an army on the planet that can cope effectively with urban warfare against an organised and uncooperative civilian population; unless you withdraw your forces and just go nuclear. But since that hasn't been tried, it possibly wouldn't be as effective as we might imagine.

Anyway, the whole point of armed revolt is picking your targets - you don't fight tanks with guns any more than you fight guns with rocks.

if you control the amount of arms the general public has access to, and also change the culture so that violence and revolt aren't as easily attempted as solutions, then in my opinion you have a much greater chance at peaceful resolutions to any future conflicts.

Repressive laws are what inevitably lead to a disaffected civilian population; it seems from what you've written here that you imagine everyone else to be willing and able to conduct themselves with middle-class manners and sensibilities. I can't honestly imagine anything further from the truth (although, ironically, for revolutions to be successful, that same mild-mannered middle-class intelligentsia has to be motivated to radical action).

I can see both sides of the argument but I'm most sympathetic towards the right-to bear-arms.

As a matter of interest is there anyone here who subscribes to the absurd view that in order to protect 'freedom' you first have to lose some of it?

[micah]

No, it's really not.  There are plenty of things in place in this country to prevent anything like that happening.

maybe to keep things like Nazism from happening but what about on the "small" scale.

After hurricane Katrina there was a complete break down of government. no 911. no police.  just people defending their families and property against roaming gangs of thugs and looters. 

[Govtcheez]

just people defending their families and property against roaming gangs of thugs and looters. 

Who also had guns.

I mean, there are plenty of good anti-gun control arguments, but you're really not making them.

maybe to keep things like Nazism from happening but what about on the "small" scale.

Like what, a local mayor deciding to off all the darkies or something?  That doesn't seem too realistic.

In any event, no 'revolutionary' force of civilians would engage in a pitched battle against a superior force because that would be suicidal.

How about the American revolution?  The vast majority of people in that army were civilians.

[charlie]

Repressive laws are what inevitably lead to a disaffected civilian population; it seems from what you've written here that you imagine everyone else to be willing and able to conduct themselves with middle-class manners and sensibilities. I can't honestly imagine anything further from the truth (although, ironically, for revolutions to be successful, that same mild-mannered middle-class intelligentsia has to be motivated to radical action).

Actually, I believe quite the opposite, and that is in fact part of the point. I don't expect people to behave "with middle-class manners and sensibilities". Hence the need for gun control. And as I said earlier, part of the benefit of our democracy is that we are only repressed by the laws enacted by our own representatives. So I just don't see the likelihood that we will ever need armed civilians in order to control our own government.

As a matter of interest is there anyone here who subscribes to the absurd view that in order to protect 'freedom' you first have to lose some of it?

I don't get why you think that idea is absurd. On its face that principle seems obvious, so your reference to it being absurd makes me think you are talking about something else.

[micah]

you missed my point but I gotta run out and don't have time to write all night to fix my poorly worded previous post.

[Ken Fitlike]

>>I don't get why...<<

If the whole point is that our way of life is better and worth protecting as it is then removing those very freedoms that define it invalidates it; the expression 'to lose freedom in order to protect it' is essentially newspeak.

>>we are only repressed by the laws enacted by our own representatives<<

So you think repression is okay then?

[KnuckleBuckett]

Micah these folks just won't get it.  Not don't get it... won't get it.  Its human nature or some such thing.  Here we are with the WWII extermination camps barely behind us and they want to seed the next nutsack control freak state.

Forget it.  Future generations have already lost their freedoms due to this exact mindset repeating for the umpteenth time in history.  Learn from history or repeat it....

[charlie]

>>I don't get why...<<

If the whole point is that our way of life is better and worth protecting as it is then removing those very freedoms that define it invalidates it; the expression 'to lose freedom in order to protect it' is essentially newspeak.

It doesn't have to be that black and white. The point is that if you have 1000 freedoms, but one of those freedoms threatens the other 999, sometimes you have to lose that one freedom to protect the other 999.

>>we are only repressed by the laws enacted by our own representatives<<

So you think repression is okay then?

I don't understand where you are going. My point was that if the population feels that they are being repressed by the government's laws, they can do something about it by changing the way that they vote. There is no need to allow civilians to be armed in order to avoid repressive laws.

Micah these folks just won't get it.  Not don't get it... won't get it.  Its human nature or some such thing.  Here we are with the WWII extermination camps barely behind us and they want to seed the next nutsack control freak state.

Forget it.  Future generations have already lost their freedoms due to this exact mindset repeating for the umpteenth time in history.  Learn from history or repeat it....

KnuckleBuckett, I am just trying to come to the most logical and sensical conclusion I can. I already gave my reasoning why I feel that extermination camps are not very relevant. If you disagree, I really wish you'd respond to those points. This post just reinforces my disagreement.

[Perspective]

I don't see the difference between well-armed American civilians and the Iraqi and Afghani resistors currently fighting the US Army.

That's because you watch american news (not meant to be offensive). Al-Quada (sp?) and the forces in Iraq are not some rag-tag militia with second rate abilities. They are a well trained and managed army.

Al-Quada > American Civilians

[Ken Fitlike]

>>It doesn't have to be that black and white.<<

Perhaps I oversimplified things, although, taking your analogy I have to wonder how many of the thousand need to be subtracted before you'd recognise that you were no longer free. There is a distinct difference between protection and repressive control. If state activities, such as surveillance, for exmple, which have previously been targeted specifically at suspected or known criminals are then applied to the entire population whether they are suspected of a crime or not then I'd certainly regard that as seriously compromising 'freedom'. The same goes for guns (although not for me); if millions of US citizens own them now and lose that right because of isolated incidents of intended or accidental death then that would nonetheless be a loss of freedom. I dare say that many more US Americans are slaughtered or maimed as a result of car accidents per year than by gun crime but I don't see much in the way of 'progressive' legislation or even discussion to ban personal car ownership.

>>I don't understand where you are going.<<

Repressive legislation has historically tended to be incremental. In isolation, each of these incremental steps doesn't always appear that restrictive at the time. Armed revolt is the last resort - but in order to do it you have to be armed, obviously. It seems to me that the US constitution is pretty advanced in the sense that it's implicitly acknowledging that governments can't be trusted and that the people should therefore always have the means to forcibly depose such governments - as a last resort.

[KnuckleBuckett]

I suppose because out Constitution was spawned from such a government.