Indecision 08 Wingnut thread

[Kai]

I think I actually agree with the terminology of assault weapons up there as useful. Then again, I'm not really into guns and you'd be fucked to take up arms against the military so *shrug*. Every gun my dad has is within those parameters, and he uses them for hunting.
I just don't see why you need a rifle or pistol with a detachable magazine, or a shotgun that can fit more than 5 shells at once.

I don't understand what you are saying you are agreeing with.
I don't think you would be fucked up to take up arms against a military that is being used against you.  I think that makes you a free man.
As far as the 'need' thing goes; why do you have to need something for it to be legal?  You don't need anti lock brakes, but they might save your ass in certain circumstances, no?  I don't need the scroll wheel on the mouse i am using, but it sure is convenient.

I think that when people try to make the case for having "assault weapons" they come off to me as crazy ass gun nuts. I think that you are coming off to me like that right now, and its not very convincing. Are you trying to convince me? Are you trying to convince anybody? Then don't talk about how much fun it is to shoot your Browning in your backyard, because if you are talking about using it as protection, its not for fun. If you want someone to take you seriously about needing one of these weapons for protection, be serious when you talk about it.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I think a government as powerful as the United States, faced with a potential insurgency, would use every tool possible to defeat such insurgents and be free to deny their methods via their friends in the media.  So poison in the water, raping and killing your family and sending you the video, bioengineered weaponry etc etc....the methods are limitless and brutal.

Could such a method work?  Its hard to say.  Terrorism would at best reduce America to a failed state status, and that's assuming this superterrorism stuff ever gets off the ground.  A guerrilla organization may have a better chance....maybe.  Depending on the particulars, such as support, ideology, lines of supply etc

Its not something I'd wish on my worst enemy though.  Counterinsurgency, by its very nature, is the nastiest form of warfare you can see.  All the rules go out the window, though it may not be publically acknowledged.  As I pointed out with my criticism in the other thread, you'd probably need to break the socio-cultural hegemon of the US political system before you could ever hope to win militarily.

i suspect the government is plenty smart enough to realise the cost of war with its own people, this is why they push the some guns are "bad" propaganda this is why they push biased  gun death statistics in the media and why the gun laws they promote effect the law abiding citizen and not criminals. the long slow approach to disarming the public is the only one that will work, England and Australia are examples of the success of this method.  

Other than the fact that I don't get shot as often what's the difference between living here or over there under Freedom^tm

[Kai]

At the end of the day... I don't know how an insurgency would work here.

However, if ever the time comes when a dictator gains control of the nation, if a time comes when jackbooted thugs are rounding up citizens for using their freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly, if a time comes when the gays and the Jews get rounded up for capms.. if the day comes when we are 'the next Nazi Germany'... I'd like to have the best guns available, because I'd rather die after fighting tyranny for five minutes, than serve it for 5 years.

I'd rather die shooting the fucker that had just arrested Kai, than live to a ripe old age, knowing that I could have and didn't.

I'd rather you didn't, live to tell the tale, build support, and move forward from there. Martyrs are so unproductive.

[fomenter]

I think a government as powerful as the United States, faced with a potential insurgency, would use every tool possible to defeat such insurgents and be free to deny their methods via their friends in the media.  So poison in the water, raping and killing your family and sending you the video, bioengineered weaponry etc etc....the methods are limitless and brutal.

Could such a method work?  Its hard to say.  Terrorism would at best reduce America to a failed state status, and that's assuming this superterrorism stuff ever gets off the ground.  A guerrilla organization may have a better chance....maybe.  Depending on the particulars, such as support, ideology, lines of supply etc

Its not something I'd wish on my worst enemy though.  Counterinsurgency, by its very nature, is the nastiest form of warfare you can see.  All the rules go out the window, though it may not be publically acknowledged.  As I pointed out with my criticism in the other thread, you'd probably need to break the socio-cultural hegemon of the US political system before you could ever hope to win militarily.

i suspect the government is plenty smart enough to realise the cost of war with its own people, this is why they push the some guns are "bad" propaganda this is why they push biased  gun death statistics in the media and why the gun laws they promote effect the law abiding citizen and not criminals. the long slow approach to disarming the public is the only one that will work, England and Australia are examples of the success of this method.  

Other than the fact that I don't get shot as often what's the difference between living here or over there under Freedom^tm

the difference is my freedom is defended and yours is subject to the good will and benevolence of your leaders.
also see gun statistics on crime from a pro 2ND amendment source, gun ownership and  getting shot "as often" (crime rates ) work in the opposite way you imagine, private gun ownership reduces crime (even if both sets of statistics are biased the argument still leans toward gun rights)

[Cain]

the difference is my freedom is defended

Your leaders could drop a cluster bomb on your house, same as mine.  They could bioengineer a weapon designed to kill someone purely with your DNA, just like mine.  Yours could fake a plane crash, a fatal mugging, a car accident or any other number of things where having a gun is no deterrence because the government has resources beyond your wildest dreams and you have a boom-stick.

The reason it doesn't is because quite frankly, you and I are not worth the effort.

[Elder Iptuous]

I think that when people try to make the case for having "assault weapons" they come off to me as crazy ass gun nuts. I think that you are coming off to me like that right now, and its not very convincing. Are you trying to convince me? Are you trying to convince anybody? Then don't talk about how much fun it is to shoot your Browning in your backyard, because if you are talking about using it as protection, its not for fun. If you want someone to take you seriously about needing one of these weapons for protection, be serious when you talk about it.

Well, this is a topic that invokes a lot of emotion, and the only people i have ever swayed are those that didn't really have an opinion one way or the other to begin with.  Hoplophobia, once ingrained, seems to be nearly impossible to rid anybody of.
As far as having fun, hell yeah.  You think it's crazy gun nuttery to have fun with firearms, but there's a good population of upright citizens that do just that.  they hunt, target shoot, sport shoot, use them for protection, and use them as the deterrent intended in the 2nd amendment.  Things can have a basis in srs business and still be fun. 
But alright, i'll just shut up since i've been written off anyways.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

At the end of the day... I don't know how an insurgency would work here.

However, if ever the time comes when a dictator gains control of the nation, if a time comes when jackbooted thugs are rounding up citizens for using their freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly, if a time comes when the gays and the Jews get rounded up for capms.. if the day comes when we are 'the next Nazi Germany'... I'd like to have the best guns available, because I'd rather die after fighting tyranny for five minutes, than serve it for 5 years.

I'd rather die shooting the fucker that had just arrested Kai, than live to a ripe old age, knowing that I could have and didn't.

I'd rather you didn't, live to tell the tale, build support, and move forward from there. Martyrs are so unproductive.

I don't believe in much of anything. However, I grew up with the stories of how Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews and gays died horribly while many of their German citizens chose to 'live to tell the tale', rather than say "Hell, no".

I chose to believe that personal freedom was worth dying for, I guess I still do.

[Elder Iptuous]

Your leaders could drop a cluster bomb on your house, same as mine.  They could bioengineer a weapon designed to kill someone purely with your DNA, just like mine.  Yours could fake a plane crash, a fatal mugging, a car accident or any other number of things where having a gun is no deterrence because the government has resources beyond your wildest dreams and you have a boom-stick.
The reason it doesn't is because quite frankly, you and I are not worth the effort.

You're being obtuse.  they don't, and won't do these things (at least as a sop) because the population has the ability to rise up with some effectiveness.  If the population doesn't have that ability, the temptation to do these things is greater.  Don't you think?

[Cain]

I think guns can be fun.  I lived way out in the countryside for a while, my friends all had shotguns and rifles and we'd go out shooting most weekends.

I just think the defence against the government idea is severely limited, given the incredible resources a government has.  If They really want to kill you, they have ways.  I'm sure America runs its own version of Project Coast, under the auspices of protection against CBW attacks.  I know the CIA certainly had a department that specialized in such exotic weaponry, from the late 50s onwards.

[Cain]

Your leaders could drop a cluster bomb on your house, same as mine.  They could bioengineer a weapon designed to kill someone purely with your DNA, just like mine.  Yours could fake a plane crash, a fatal mugging, a car accident or any other number of things where having a gun is no deterrence because the government has resources beyond your wildest dreams and you have a boom-stick.
The reason it doesn't is because quite frankly, you and I are not worth the effort.

You're being obtuse.  they don't, and won't do these things (at least as a sop) because the population has the ability to rise up with some effectiveness.  If the population doesn't have that ability, the temptation to do these things is greater.  Don't you think?

I'm not being obtuse, I'm being realistic.  If the population doesn't know, or doesn't think its part of the target, it wont give a shit.  Its called covering it up. Ever heard of COINTELPRO?  I don't recall the 2nd Ammendment ever being a factor in that.  The CIA kidnapped and experimented on humans as part of its MK-ULTRA Program.  If you can take someone alive, you can kill them easily, and silently.  No-one ever needs to know, its just another dead body in the river.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I have no reason to think that the government wouldn't try to put down any uprising with insane amounts of force, if necessary. I don't think that us having guns would stop them from trying. Though, in my opinion, they would fail, simply because they don't have the resources to pacify a 3000 mile wide continent. They can't pacify Afghanistan and Iraq for Erissake.   At the same time though, for me, it's not about if my gun would help me Win... its about if my gun will help me survive, or if my gun will help me take a stand, 'martyr' or not.

Maybe that's stupid, perhaps I should stay alive and play meek and mild when Sam Hitlerlite takes over as President. Maybe I should... but I don't think that I would and I think that, at the very least, I'd like the option.

Not that a shotgun or hunting rifle would do much good, but well, what the fuck, it's only life.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Lets put this in perspective people - the second amendment was invented by a bunch of medieval fucks who were totally buzzed with their recent victory against 'the man' and feeling more idealistic than realistic.

Step forward 6 million years or however long it's been and 'the man' is now a lot closer to home, an with a ubiquitous reach that would have been unfathomable back then.

And you can stop him by buying a gun?

Yeah right!

[Elder Iptuous]

I'm not being obtuse, I'm being realistic.  If the population doesn't know, or doesn't think its part of the target, it wont give a shit.  Its called covering it up. Ever heard of COINTELPRO?  I don't recall the 2nd Ammendment ever being a factor in that.  The CIA kidnapped and experimented on humans as part of its MK-ULTRA Program.  If you can take someone alive, you can kill them easily, and silently.  No-one ever needs to know, its just another dead body in the river.

Yes, i am familiar with these things.....
And i can tell you that because of these limited abuses by the gov against its citizens, there is limited willingness among said citizens to take up arms against it.  If these abuses were made a frequent event, or done on a larger scale, or even perceived to be, there would be a much greater willingness among citizens to take up arms.  You're pointing at isolated incidents and saying that this extrapolates up to large scale oppression that the RKBA is designed for.

[fomenter]

i wouldn't say the gov doesn't have the resources to make people disappear but the need to do so must be there, if you are a rebel leader then disappearing you makes you a martyr and a rallying point for the armed citizenry, if you are a nobody armed citizen there is no reason to go to the trouble. the strength is in numbers they wont make individuals or groups disappear if they know the result isn't the one they want (unopposed tyranny)

[Cain]

Also, to quote Stalin:

"The Pope.  How many divisions has he got?"

That is the mentality of almost every successful leader.  The actual deterrence threat, right now, of guns in the arms of US citizens right now is hovering around zero.  Why?  Because while most people may say they uphold the second Ammendent and have them to defend against government tyranny, they don't mean this (or the incoming government).  Oh no, they mean some hypothetical government, one which presumably does more than just torture and lock people up without reason and so on and so forth.

The practical threat assessment, right now, would say: lone wolves, possibly self-organizing cells, minimal military experience.  Fuck, I wouldn't be scared of that, even if I only had the Swiss Guard as my military arm.

This is what I mean when I talk about breaking the political-social hegemon.  Guns are nothing more than a hypothetical threat, and government's do not give a shit about hypothetical threats.  Sure, some time in the future, maybe some sort of agarian revolution with a measure of popular support will be directed against Washington DC.  But it ain't happening now, and there are no indicators it is about to happen.  So the threat, the deterrent value, don't mean shit.