Indecision 08 Wingnut thread

[Elder Iptuous]

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

Honestly, i stand up for the right to have 'assault rifles' on principle, and there might be a place for that in a resistance, however, i would think that the most useful tool would be a high powered bolt rifle with good optics. (and the requisite skill to put it to use)

[P3nT4gR4m]

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.

[Kai]

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.

I don't see it that way. I see a weapon designed and used exclusively for the purpose of killing living things for the last....300-400 years? Since firearms came into vogue anyway. I see a weapon designed and used exclusively for that purpose as something that you should take only the utmost care and respect with, and certainly not used for fun. Unlike martial arts it has no other purpose. Unlike a knife it doesn't have multiple uses.

[Elder Iptuous]

...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). 

...government's do not give a shit about hypothetical threats.

...But it ain't happening now, and there are no indicators it is about to happen.

these points i call 

[Cain]

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.

Or it just could be that the government does not need to do these things large scale.  Which is more likely?  A string of "isolated incidents" (not so isolated as to not have gone on for decades) done on a number of target populations necessary to get the data required, or because they are scared THE MOB (who, at the time, were bedwetting about Communists IIRC) are gonna knock down the doors of Langley for the sake of some whores and student radicals who they'd probably be abusing themselves if given the chance?

[Cain]

...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). 

...government's do not give a shit about hypothetical threats.

...But it ain't happening now, and there are no indicators it is about to happen.

these points i call 

Oh fuck off.  You're not even debating in good faith anymore.

Try: nearly every single government paper ever produced on deterrence.  No, I don't have the time to list them all.

[Elder Iptuous]

...and certainly not used for fun. Unlike martial arts it has no other purpose.

Ok. I'm trying to stop gun-nuttery responses to you, but i had to respond to this....
What?!
martial arts (the act of kicking someones ass) can be used for fun, but firearms shot at targets, are not allowed to be recreational?

[Cain]

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.

I don't see it that way. I see a weapon designed and used exclusively for the purpose of killing living things for the last....300-400 years? Since firearms came into vogue anyway. I see a weapon designed and used exclusively for that purpose as something that you should take only the utmost care and respect with, and certainly not used for fun. Unlike martial arts it has no other purpose. Unlike a knife it doesn't have multiple uses.

You can shoot targets.  We used to use cans, or bullseye targets we put up.

[Elder Iptuous]

...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). 

...government's do not give a shit about hypothetical threats.

...But it ain't happening now, and there are no indicators it is about to happen.

these points i call 

Oh fuck off.  You're not even debating in good faith anymore.

Try: nearly every single government paper ever produced on deterrence.  No, I don't have the time to list them all.

Bullshit. you're spouting things and you won't back them up? 
You say people that support the 2nd amendment aren't referring to it's use on our current gov?  rather pretentious to say that because people have not yet felt that it is necessary to take up arms that they wouldn't use it on the current gov if they committed atrocities at some level. 
You say gov doesn't give a shit about hypothetical threats?  You know full well that they do give a shit. enough so that they spend good resources on planning for all kinds of unlikely events.  The shit like the continuity of govt plans that take into account armed populace proves it.  They do factor an armed populace into their equations, therefore it has some deterrent effect.  you think it isn't sufficient, say that, but don't spout off superlative statements and then tell me to fuck off when i call you on it.
You say that there isn't growing resentment towards the govt, that could lead to popular support against the govt. and i'm wondering how you can possibly say that?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

...and certainly not used for fun. Unlike martial arts it has no other purpose.

Ok. I'm trying to stop gun-nuttery responses to you, but i had to respond to this....
What?!
martial arts (the act of kicking someones ass) can be used for fun, but firearms shot at targets, are not allowed to be recreational?

I've never really considered guns as 'fun'... though back in the day I did a lot of target shooting so that I could get good at shooting what I aimed for. In all honesty, there is something extremely 'fun' when you feel the kick and hear the noise and see the little clay disc go *poof*.

Of course, I 'have fun' playing with rapiers... but they had many uses, like killing, maiming and cutting the clothing off of particularly fine looking women, like Catherine Zeta Jones.

[Elder Iptuous]

Of course, I 'have fun' playing with rapiers... but they had many uses, like killing, maiming and cutting the clothing off of particularly fine looking women, like Catherine Zeta Jones.

NO! only one (1) use!!!!
I suggest the naked woman one.

[fomenter]

there is far more to creating a tyranny than having a unarmed populous, the  propaganda to get the cooperation of the masses goes a lot further and usually comes before the confiscating of guns, the deterrent to tyranny starts with not buying into the government's propaganda including their claim you will some how be safer without arms. the threat assessment is a calculation of how much the masses will go along with the establishment of government control if the population resists the slow encroachment of gun control it sends a message that we will resist...

[P3nT4gR4m]

...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). 

...government's do not give a shit about hypothetical threats.

...But it ain't happening now, and there are no indicators it is about to happen.

these points i call 

Oh fuck off.  You're not even debating in good faith anymore.

Try: nearly every single government paper ever produced on deterrence.  No, I don't have the time to list them all.

Bullshit. you're spouting things and you won't back them up? 
You say people that support the 2nd amendment aren't referring to it's use on our current gov?  rather pretentious to say that because people have not yet felt that it is necessary to take up arms that they wouldn't use it on the current gov if they committed atrocities at some level. 
You say gov doesn't give a shit about hypothetical threats?  You know full well that they do give a shit. enough so that they spend good resources on planning for all kinds of unlikely events.  The shit like the continuity of govt plans that take into account armed populace proves it.  They do factor an armed populace into their equations, therefore it has some deterrent effect.  you think it isn't sufficient, say that, but don't spout off superlative statements and then tell me to fuck off when i call you on it.
You say that there isn't growing resentment towards the govt, that could lead to popular support against the govt. and i'm wondering how you can possibly say that?

They never will. The government has pretty much nailed the coffin shut on this one. Right now, as we speak, "we the people" are begging on their hands and knees to have more of their rights taken away every day and the ones that oppose it are increasingly vilified and marginalised.

You might have stood a chance of organising an uprising if you'd gotten there 40 or 50 years ago but, as it stands, your constitution only means anything to the lunatic fringes. The population who you so desperately wish to save will be the first to call the cops the minute you give it a shot.

By the time the government gets bad enough to satisfy your own criterion there'll be no one left with the will to stand against them. Right now your government is rampaging across the planet, killing and torturing indiscriminately. What more would it take?

[Elder Iptuous]

They never will. The government has pretty much nailed the coffin shut on this one. Right now, as we speak, "we the people" are begging on their hands and knees to have more of their rights taken away every day and the ones that oppose it are increasingly vilified and marginalised.

You might have stood a chance of organising an uprising if you'd gotten there 40 or 50 years ago but, as it stands, your constitution only means anything to the lunatic fringes. The population who you so desperately wish to save will be the first to call the cops the minute you give it a shot.

By the time the government gets bad enough to satisfy your own criterion there'll be no one left with the will to stand against them. Right now your government is rampaging across the planet, killing and torturing indiscriminately. What more would it take?

It would be foolish of me not to admit that there is a significant possibility of this being true.  But, I'm not going to resign myself to it, and certainly won't tailor my political opinions and actions as if it is.

[P3nT4gR4m]

They never will. The government has pretty much nailed the coffin shut on this one. Right now, as we speak, "we the people" are begging on their hands and knees to have more of their rights taken away every day and the ones that oppose it are increasingly vilified and marginalised.

You might have stood a chance of organising an uprising if you'd gotten there 40 or 50 years ago but, as it stands, your constitution only means anything to the lunatic fringes. The population who you so desperately wish to save will be the first to call the cops the minute you give it a shot.

By the time the government gets bad enough to satisfy your own criterion there'll be no one left with the will to stand against them. Right now your government is rampaging across the planet, killing and torturing indiscriminately. What more would it take?

It would be foolish of me not to admit that there is a significant possibility of this being true.  But, I'm not going to resign myself to it, and certainly won't tailor my political opinions and actions as if it is.

If we do win this war it won't be with guns. It's how much damage you can do with your mind that'll make a difference, that and how much mental punishment you can take and still come back fighting. That's how they're winning on the domestic front. The foreign policy is merely a distraction.

Suppose they had a war and no one realised they were being killed