Gun Control

[Effective]

Originally Posted by belch

I read this as I cleaned my Glock 21 (Austrian manufactured), thru which I shot 2x50 round boxes of PPU .45 ACP (Serbian manufactured)...

I mean, don't be afraid of this guy:

Stabbed by cat torturer at Bed, Bath and Beyond

Be afraid of me and my "WMD-in-a-pistol-Glock".

There was also a fatal car crash somewhere. That shit should be stopped too. Privately owned cars that is.

Why are you even posting? I think no one cares about your opinion but you.

[belch]

you know, that I care about my opinion isn't even the right question. That those in disagreement with me here have reacted so childish when called on their ridiculous statements never occurs to you as odd...

In short, I could care less that you don't think anyone cares. I already know that you are wrong. It is, however, my duty to point out stupidity.

[Figment]

Oh, and uhm, the NRA is speaking for its (four million, or... far less, including dead people?) members, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...hmaster?page=1

Indeed, the CEO of the Bushmaster assault rifle (where do we know that thing from again?) is apparently on the NRA board... >.>


Gee, I wonder why someone like that would ever be against stopping sales of semi-auto assault rifles!

[Effective]

Originally Posted by belch

you know, that I care about my opinion isn't even the right question. That those in disagreement with me here have reacted so childish when called on their ridiculous statements never occurs to you as odd...

In short, I could care less that you don't think anyone cares. I already know that you are wrong. It is, however, my duty to point out stupidity.

Then allow me to point out that comparing a gun to a knife or auto accidents is incredibly stupid.

Is a knife dangerous? Absolutely, but if the Sandy hook gunman, had a knife instead of pistols (as I believe the AR15 was not used, but so many sources disagree on which it was, let's just say the pistol was used). If a knife was used instead. Could our neigherhood friendly mentally ill kid have killed 26 people as easily? Maybe, but I'm doubtful.

Chances he could have been stopped by a teacher are not terrible. Nevermind the that he probably wasn't in superb shape, on top of the fact that he is mentally ill so it's doubtful he'd ever know some of the more fancy techniques other then stab stab stab.

Car accidents? Your post while obviously not serious towards banning car ownership due to fatal car accidents. No one wants to ban guns except for left winged extremist that no one take seriously anyways. Would banning guns reduce gun violence? Yes, it would, however I don't think that's the right direction to go into (while guns are the core cause of the whole mess, irresponsible gun owner are to blame almost as much, as is the lack of noticing someone mentally ill about to go overboard and murder several people), and neither does the current administration. What they're trying to do, is make it more difficult for gun related violence to happen.

More thorough background checks, improving the mental care system, rebanning the purchase of weapons of various types, namely weapons resembling assault weapons such as the AR15 (hint, if you already own one, they are not going to take it away from you). None of these are bad things, and they're aimed at slowly trying to reduce gun related violence. Will it stop gun related violence, absolutely not. There's no way to do that. It's impossible as long as guns are in existence. But the goal is to drop the amounts of deaths, for example in using drunk driving.

We enact stricter blood/alcohol limits, raise the drinking age to 21, ram up enforcement and penalties, charge bartenders who serve drunks, and launch enormous public awareness campaigns. In 3 decades, the number of drunk driving deaths dropped by 2/3's. That's pretty amazing right? All without banning alcohol and cars.

[belch]

Effective:

Fair enough. It was obviously meant as a mirror knee jerk reaction to the type of commentary that pervades this issue. I highly doubt that many of the anti-gun folks that have weighed in on this thread are at all trying to solve or pose solutions to the issue...rather, they are platforming in the most ridiculous of fashion, and to be honest, without any real understanding of what they are even talking about. To compare the vast majority of American gun owners to Adam Lanza is just as absurd of a stretch as my comparisons, and that is exactly the point.

For the record, I agree with you on several points. For instance, increasing the requirements for background checks as related to firearm purchases is a necessary step. Overall, much of the executive actions summary was common sense stuff, nothing I would take issue with. There was some specific verbiage that disturbed me as being left intentionally vague, however I understand the intent.

As to whether Adam Lanza could have perpetrated the crimes with a knife, well...of course not. I am glad he didn't pull a McVeigh and turn the entire school into a smoldering pile of rubble. Not trying to minimize the event, but bombing schools, market places and bus stations is not exactly something new or unheard of. The reason it is the preferred technique in certain circles is that it nets a 'high profile event' and the expected media coverage...which is what it seems Adam Lanza was also hoping to accomplish. It has been said, and I totally agree...it could have been a lot worse that day.

You pointed out something that has troubled me since the event. Mainly, the horrible reporting. I can't tell if it was a rush to get some/any info out or what, but...I have seen 19 year old's pull it together after a messy firefight, and be able to deliver a timely and accurate sitrep. What the heck is going on with the PD in that town? It seems odd that it is still unclear what weapons were used. I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but...something is amiss.

[Bags]

One question I've always wanted answered

1.) If in the event of a revolt, the military would so overwhelming join in, why do the average citizens need guns to fight the then tyrannical government?

I've never understood the logic. "We need guns to fight the people who won't actually be fighting us".

[belch]

That's an interesting question Bags, but you have to understand...we would like to think that they would all join in. And make no mistake about it...many of us would. But, like any large organization...to speak for and make guarantees of every service member is just not realistic.

One thing I'd like to point out. The American military does have a lot of weapons systems that make it seem staggeringly powerful. So much so that the point of fighting such a military seems pointless.

I guess the Taliban haven't gotten that memo. And I can tell you, that after a decade of fighting the American military without the benefit of tanks, helicopters, and drone aircraft...they are still very much a major influence in Afghanistan.

[Effective]

Originally Posted by belch

I guess the Taliban haven't gotten that memo. And I can tell you, that after a decade of fighting the American military without the benefit of tanks, helicopters, and drone aircraft...they are still very much a major influence in Afghanistan.

The taliban also have several advantages your average homegrown american does not. Most of them are in good physical condition (where as your average american is pretty much borderline obese), receive at least minimal training in firearms and how to move on a battlefield, are willing to sacrifice themselves for what they believe is the greater good, they have the advantage of terrain in Afghanistan (which seems to be famous for it's numerous caves and such).

On another note, I don't see the point in revolting unless the government decides to pull a hitler/stalin/dictator, which they won't, considering it's an incredibly stupid thing to do.

[belch]

Originally Posted by Effective

The taliban also have several advantages your average homegrown american does not. Most of them are in good physical condition (where as your average american is pretty much borderline obese), receive at least minimal training in firearms and how to move on a battlefield, are willing to sacrifice themselves for what they believe is the greater good, they have the advantage of terrain in Afghanistan (which seems to be famous for it's numerous caves and such).

On another note, I don't see the point in revolting unless the government decides to pull a hitler/stalin/dictator, which they won't, considering it's an incredibly stupid thing to do.

I've heard the same thing said for so many of our "enemy"...it's very easy to say that the average citizen would be worthless in a fight when you aren't actually fighting them. It would be unwise to count out anybody to be honest, but if you are mistaking all Americans for the urban stereotypes, you would be incorrect. There are plenty of American citizens who who grew up hunting, gaining more than basic knowledge in basic firearms handling, as well as maneuvering on a wary target. And that's just one dynamic...I'd say you have more Americans "ready made" to act as insurgents than you are giving credit.

Guerrilla warfare, asymmetric operations, insurgency...whatever you want to call it, and whatever level and phase of warfare we are talking about, conventional forces are facing a lot more than just an adversary with basic firearms and fire and maneuver training.

That aside, I agree with you...there is no reason to take up arms in America at this point. The President is not a dictator by any stretch.

[PTG HooT]

I have it on good authority that guns don't kill people - rappers do.

[Helwyr]

Originally Posted by Bags

One question I've always wanted answered

1.) If in the event of a revolt, the military would so overwhelming join in, why do the average citizens need guns to fight the then tyrannical government?

I've never understood the logic. "We need guns to fight the people who won't actually be fighting us".

Your question tells as much as would any answer, it's unintentionally very enlightening. Within the formulating of your question you have answered why people have come to need to even discuss the of tyranny of government. You have surrendered power and responsibility to others.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Helwyr

Your question tells as much as would any answer, it's unintentionally very enlightening. Within the formulating of your question you have answered why people have come to need to even discuss the of tyranny of government. You have surrendered power and responsibility to others.

Electing a democratic government is not relinquishing, let alone surrendering power to others to govern in the first place, it is entrusting and empowering them with power to govern in your stead ("your" as refering to a populace' average wishes) and you as a populace have the power to take it away if they don't use it as you hoped they would.

Surrendering would mean you would never be able to take it back or entrusting someone else with it. Only if the government governs without being checked by anything, no courts, military, civilian elections or otherwise then you have a tyranny.

The thing is, you excluded that option from occuring by stating your civilians and military would never allow that to happen: they'd never support such a government.


So then the question contains a very specific condition: the army supports the democratic rights of the populace, because it is made up of self-aware, constitution loyal, enlisted civilian conscripts, rather than government lackeys. This means that if there's a government in power that did not get there by elections or does not follow the constitution as determined by the supreme court, the military would not support it.

Under this condition, there's nobody to fight if the government would go against the supreme court rulings on whether something is constitutional as they would therefore go against the military and civilians.

Hence it is argued, there's no need for the civilian to do anything but convince other civilians to vote differently during the next round of elections. If the elections would not be honored by the government, the military would actually help remove them - or at the very least not stop the civilians from removing them.



Note that the conditions are hypothetical, but have been defined by the pro-gun people as being the ones actually true in practice. In reality however, they should have defined the military as being strictly government controlled in order to have the need to fight them.

It's this irrational condition that is questioned. Not that a tyrannical government could ever exist, mind you. It is however argued that under the conditions stated, a tyrannically inclined government would never get the support of the military and is therefor very unlikely to be able to come to be and even if would, wouldn't last very long.



Worse though, is the amount of distrust it suggests towards democratically elected governments. The trend I've been noticing with predominantly the Republican rightwing is that they deem every law that's not their personal favourite, but somehow might affect them, or even if it doesn't but doesn't stroke with their personal philosophy of life, is tyrannical. They even feel that if a non-Republican is elected, somehow the elections were "stolen" from them, as they "should have been in office themselves". There's a very distinct drive to create distrust and paranoia towards an democratically elected government that's not the party of the choice of a select group of people.

If there's anything you should be concerned with unconstitutional elements, you should be looking at dangerous fringe group rogues like that in control of mass media.

FOX, I'm looking at you.






Anyway, on the recent gun control stuff, watch The Daily Show episodes from last week.

[Figment]

Oh btw, for you constitution lubbers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/op...anted=all&_r=0

Interesting reading material.

[Helwyr]

Originally Posted by Figment

Oh btw, for you constitution lubbers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/op...anted=all&_r=0

Interesting reading material.

Thanks, but I'd already read that article when it first came out, I try to keep abreast of all the news/propaganda/opinion not just that aligned with my own thinking.

I was going to respond to all your points of argument in the previous post, but opted not to as that alone just wouldn't lead us anywhere constructive. Further it would feed into the false political narrative you seem trapped in, which is that this is a Republican vs Democrat, Fox vs MSNBC et al. What's happening in this country and the rest of the world is too important the stakes too high for me to treat this exchange with you as I would with some contentious issue about Planetside. I'm simply not interested in trying to "win" a debate on guns in a forum dedicated to playing video games. I am interested in opening your mind if only a little bit to what's going on around you.

Lets start with NY, since we left off with reading the NYT. Are the police there to protect you? Check out this interesting story...

Could the Military and Police turn against the people when a government disregards people's rights and orders them to do so? Look no further than Katrina. Unfortunately, while there's plenty of good guys amongst them that haven't surrendered their ability to think for themselves, there's also many like the rest of population are either bad people or who will follow orders regardless of what they are or their legality.

Here's one video on Katrina gun confiscation if you don't want to do a search for yourself:
Here's interview showing the mentality of some soldiers that leads to this problem:
Then there's the 'we're (speaking of the US) a democracy'. Actually we're a Republic here with lots of checks and balances, including a Bill of Rights. That's there in part to also protect us from a tyranny of the majority, you can't for instance lawfully get Slavery brought back just because the majority voted for it. The problem is those checks and balances and innate rights are increasingly being eroded and bypassed.

There's just so much on this it's hard to know where to begin. Perhaps since you mentioned a lot about voting and democracy that's a good place to start. The awesome non choice of Obama or Romney meant essentially it didn't matter who got into power the underlying agenda was going to win. Worse many of those voting for Obama who won had no clue what they were voting for beyond the abstract and superficial. The democratic process serves no good purpose when it is devoid of real choice and those participating are not informed.

Questioning Obama supporters on the Obama Administration:

I don't know if any of this is going to help you Figment to see out of the little blue box you've allowed yourself to be locked into, but at least I tried.

[Figment]

Honestly I don't think you're being entirely fair here with regards to the soldiers.

What a lot of Republicans seem to want is Afghanistan in America: every man for himself with their own militias and their own guns. It leads to a lot of problems and you saw that during Katrina. :/ We've had floods as well (see North Sea flood of 1953). But the looting and violence you saw in the Katrina aftermath?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...l_disturbances

No. Not by a longshot. Groups of gunmen going around looting? Snipers firing at rescue and police helicopters? Does all that sound like lawful citizens with guns?

Sorry, but I don't believe in that sort of "lawfulness" and desperate times call for desperate measures. Ask yourself what happened AFTER the guns had been taken away. Did things settle down, or, as many here would argue, did it escalate? Be honest here.

You think it's wiser to take some people's guns, everyone's guns, or let a few keep it and let them "sort it out" for themselves where some are more willing than others to use it offensively?





As for the Republic thing, you are a bi-tyranny, biranny or whatever you want to call your see-saw political arena of "blegh". You're not protected from a tyranny of the majority, you're under a direct tyranny of two minorities. That's a lot worse and your systems is horribly outdated. Largely due to the poor write up of your rather obsolete constitution too.


Unfortunately, US citizens are often too proud and indoctrinated that they're the best to realise they're actually just a very proud ex-colony that became rather overbearing and is slowly beginning to crumble and lag behind under its own weight and poor infrastructure and other sub-par systems (education comes to mind). >.>

Tbh, you probably need a complete constitution update. :/

And that slavery argument thing... I don't think that's the best analogy to use in relation to your constitution or the people who drafted it... Do remember you're not the only government type with checks and balances or a constitution btw. You don't have to explain that. You do need to make them actually work, since if only two parties can ever vie for control and when they do don't have to concede to other parties, that means it doesn't work, at all.


We have a constitutional, democratic parliamentary monarchy. The office of "president" is not for sale like in your country. Here, the prime-minister is the faction leader of the biggest coalition party with the vice prime-minister being the faction leader of the second largest coalition party and the remaining minister posts divided over the various coalition partners. And those parties can be left and right wing parties working together.

The system of coalitions is a check within the triad set up. Coalitions change every election: not only do parties change their own agenda's over time or can't reach a concensus (meaning they'll end up sleeping with another party instead if that works out better), the democratic electorate's demographics and opinions of the competence of the leadership and electoral programs of various parties change every year. With us, every vote in every part of the country counts and different parties often represent niche groups.

With you, ALL ministers are typically from the same party. ALL your new Supreme Court members are typically designated by the party in complete control of the political power. ALL your military and agency leaders are designated by the party in control. With you, states hardly ever shift "colour" and it makes it pointless to even try for any than a very select few states where there's a 50-50ish situation. Your parties represent a small portion of the populace, but the populace mostly vote for who they like less, rather than who they would prefer due to the First Past the Poll system (winner takes all).


So what do you mean by democracy leads to "tyranny of the majority"? That's a lie propagated by people invested in maintaining your current system.


Show me some democracies where tyranny of the majority occurs. Please. Because I personally don't know of any democracies where there's more tyranny than in Republics. I mean even the UK has three party system - thus a coalition system - and theirs is much like your electoral system.





Btw, I don't get why anyone would mention the Bill of Rights as if it's some unknown, alien to the rest of the world thing. It's not that unique: most nations have constitutions these days and separation of powers, we know how they work.

The Scots and British had a Claim of Right Act, Petition of Right and Bill of Rights well before the USA anyway (all pre-cursors to your constitution), and your declaration of independence was quite likely inspired by the Dutch Act of Abjuration following the Union of Utrecht. You're not the only ones who been busy with human rights and national independence rights. :/