The second amendment was put in the constitution so that The People would have the means to protect their liberty, so that their freedom was in their own hands. Personally, I think James Madison was taking the piss...It was a bitter joke then, and it's a bitter joke now.
It was a bitter joke then, because of things like The Whiskey Rebellion, which demonstrated that even with weapons the same as the government had, ordinary citizens stood no chance of fending off the army. That still leaves the ability, however, to use guns as a method of removing a tyrant through assassination.
Problem is, of course, who would you shoot? History has shown that every assassination HELPED the cause of the person assassinated (Martin Luther King, etc), or made things worse (Lincoln).
And it's a bitter joke today, because despite being the most armed population on the planet, nobody has lifted a finger as one right after another has been abrogated. In fact, the ONLY amendment that hasn't been shitcanned is amendment III, and that's just because there's no money to be made in quartering troops in peoples' houses.
I still support the 2nd amendment, because the potential is still there...But I still get a good laugh out of people screaming about needing their firearms to stay free. There are many ways to stay free, but the same bastards screaming about their precious liberties are the ones cheering on every erosion of those liberties.
Why? Easy. They don't want RIGHTS, they want PRIVILEGE. They certainly don't want smudgy people having the same rights as they have, and they have this incredibly bizarre idea that torturing foreigners (or holding them without trial) will always be restricted to Ay-rabs, Big Scary Black Dudes, etc. They do not for one moment dream that these things can happen to them.
But the fun part about rights are that they are SEIZED. Privilege is GRANTED, and thus can be taken away. And these privileges WILL be taken away...It's just a matter of time. And the yahoos will be stunned; they will wonder why nobody will rise in arms for them, never once considering that they themselves failed to rise in arms for anyone else.
So there you have it: Guns are necessary to protect rights you don't have.
Also: Back in Chicago, I knew a guy who thought that trials were unnecessary, that they were some sort of privilege given to criminals (as opposed to finding out if the accused was actually the person who did in fact commit the crime), because God knows the police don't waste time arresting innocent people.
I pointed out that trials were a constitutionally guaranteed right, and if we're gonna get rid of them, then we may as well get rid of firearm ownership.
His response?
"I need those guns to protect my rights."
He was utterly oblivious to the dangerous levels of irony, and I didn't bother explaining it. Educating one po'bucker yahoo among millions wouldn't do any good even IF I could drive the notion through his thick fucking head.
Excellent point. Ive never held a gun let alone owned one. If anything stockpiling a bunch of guns for that time when shit hits the fanTM whatever shit that may be will probably put one on the big bad nwos radar. I like how un paranoia feeds in to it too.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on January 02, 2013, 04:51:12 PM
Excellent point. Ive never held a gun let alone owned one. If anything stockpiling a bunch of guns for that time when shit hits the fanTM whatever shit that may be will probably put one on the big bad nwos radar. I like how un paranoia feeds in to it too.
Twid, the shit's been hitting the fan for 12 years now. The government doesn't CARE who has guns, because
guns are irrelevant.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 04:52:41 PM
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on January 02, 2013, 04:51:12 PM
Excellent point. Ive never held a gun let alone owned one. If anything stockpiling a bunch of guns for that time when shit hits the fanTM whatever shit that may be will probably put one on the big bad nwos radar. I like how un paranoia feeds in to it too.
Twid, the shit's been hitting the fan for 12 years now. The government doesn't CARE who has guns, because guns are irrelevant.
Yep. Non-issue.
They'll run over your shit with tanks.
Let me expand on that.
Okay, so we have this huge population, and we have about one gun per two people. This obviously makes for a potentially dangerous situation.
But if Jon Q Public can be controlled anyway, by popular media and pre-packaged, shrink-wrapped "resistance movements" provided by the same people fucking John Q Public, then the potential danger is meaningless.
Think of it this way...My dog is HUGE, and is perfectly capable of ripping me literally limb from limb. However, there's no danger, because my dog is incapable of forming the intent to do me harm. It not only doesn't occur to him, it CAN'T occur to him. It's simply not in his mental framework.
So nuts with guns? They're a danger to you and I...Recent events have proven as much. But a danger to the government? Not even close.
Thats why i said if anything. The idea that a few guys will somehow be able to save their version of america with guns against an army (rather than the atf or something) is absurd.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on January 02, 2013, 05:01:56 PM
Thats why i said if anything. The idea that a few guys will somehow be able to save their version of america with guns against an army (rather than the atf or something) is absurd.
Sure. But my argument is that the government doesn't care who's stockpiling guns. They're no actual threat, and when they need an example to scare the shit out of the population, it's easier to simply manufacture one (Wiki "Ruby Ridge", and have a read), then to dig around through the records.
There's some propaganda value to all of this, of course.
In regards to assassination:
It depends on your POV. If the problem is a certain man in a certain place, then great. Killing Kennedy was pretty useful for Lyndon Johnson, the Mafia, the CIA etc. Most medieval armies relied on a single strong leader to keep them all together, and when that person died, the army dissolved, which was the source of success of the Ismaili cultists (at least until they met the Mongols, who had something akin to a modern chain of command).
On the other hand, assassinating Bush to protest against the Patriot Act...not so handy. Assassinating Hitler, famously, was considered troublesome because of the possibility of someone more competent taking over. That said, it didn't stop SOE from whacking several Generals and Nazi officers, most famously Reinhart Heydrich. Assassinating Stalin wouldn't have ended Communism in the USSR.
It can be used as a tool of terrorism though, like the Ismailis did. By publically killing people associated with certain ideas or actions, intimidation can be used to dissuade them. Possibly.
Such campaigns can also be used as part of a strategy of escalation, like the Social Revolutionaries in Russia did, advocating and carrying out assassinations to provoke a brutal crackdown which would then provoke more sympathy for the movement and, over time, break the morale and support of the Czarist Empire.
However, like all tactics, it is a matter of context as to where such an attack would be useful or not. Against the entire machinery of modern government, a single bullet, while certainly less bloody than revolution or war, is probably not going to have the desired effect. Certainly not unless combined with other actions to massively increase the impact of such a shot.
This might have been covered already, but is there a possibility that the guns themselves create a general atmosphere of Fear and Paranoia which is then used as an excuse to limit freedoms? So the tools given to protect our freedom actually serves to limit them.
Quote from: Cain on January 02, 2013, 05:15:59 PM
On the other hand, assassinating Bush to protest against the Patriot Act...not so handy. Assassinating Hitler, famously, was considered troublesome because of the possibility of someone more competent taking over. That said, it didn't stop SOE from whacking several Generals and Nazi officers, most famously Reinhart Heydrich. Assassinating Stalin wouldn't have ended Communism in the USSR.
<snip>
However, like all tactics, it is a matter of context as to where such an attack would be useful or not. Against the entire machinery of modern government, a single bullet, while certainly less bloody than revolution or war, is probably not going to have the desired effect. Certainly not unless combined with other actions to massively increase the impact of such a shot.
Well, this is exactly my point. Funny thing is, Hitler aside, the people who are the obvious targets of assassination are usually the people
moderating the people beneath them, and preventing even worse abuses.
The Lincoln example is my favorite...Lincoln wanted a concilatory approach to the South after the civil war. So dumbass John Wilkes Booth kills him in a terminal fit of attention-whoring, and the result was a punishment-oriented approach to reconstruction.
And, with respect to the current government, there's no one person - or even 100 people - that you could assassinate that would make any difference whatsoever. America, for example, is called "a nation ruled by laws, not men"...We're actually a nation ruled by The Machine™, not men, but the result is the same. Kill one cog, he gets replaced with some other asshole, and nobody smells the difference. The Machine™ grinds right along without skipping a beat.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 02, 2013, 05:17:46 PM
This might have been covered already, but is there a possibility that the guns themselves create a general atmosphere of Fear and Paranoia which is then used as an excuse to limit freedoms? So the tools given to protect our freedom actually serves to limit them.
Sano just mentioned this in another thread:
Quote from: Sano on January 02, 2013, 02:26:30 PM
People here have commented on the paradox that people buy into the idea of individualism yet are always displaying signals of being submissive to a certain community, and that it may be because of their feelings of insecurity; I think it might be something more general:
People operating under the "rugged individualism" meme do not want to live in a society (for certain definitions of "society", of course)
Not wanting to live in a society, they don't care for it.
Not caring for it, they don't pay attention to the idea.
Not paying attention to the idea, they don't know much about it.
Not knowing much about it, they can be part of one without realizing it.
And of course, if you are a part of something without even realizing that something is there you can be manipulated by it much more easily. Which explains why countries thought to be more community-oriented (Britain and Japan were cited) are less conforming: they are able to see some of the bullshit because they recognize their own community-related experiences better and are able to use that knowledge in their favor.
So the paradox does not arise from the conflict of an idea with a specific psychological reaction to it, it follows usually from the idea itself, it's a consequence of it. Does any of this make sense? :?
Also, yeah, if you let the po'buckers keep their guns, but occasionally threaten to take them away, they will concentrate on those guns to the exclusion of all others, as every one of them thinks of themselves as a latent Rambo-esque lone hero, in the same manner that they assume that they will one day be rich.
But also, there is a fear generated by the amount of guns, at least to a lot of my more liberal friends. A low-grade tension, a fear of gun-related violence, which prompts an urge to limit freedoms to increase false security; but those limits don't pertain to the thing that's producing the fear.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 02, 2013, 05:33:50 PM
But also, there is a fear generated by the amount of guns, at least to a lot of my more liberal friends. A low-grade tension, a fear of gun-related violence, which prompts an urge to limit freedoms to increase false security; but those limits don't pertain to the thing that's producing the fear.
Humans can adjust to any level of any threat. One way they do that is to allow police state levels of law in response to the nagging idea that their neighbor could just snap one day and turn their neighborhood into Sarejavo. They can't SAY that's what bothers them, but it's there, usually cloaked under the idea of gangbangers (read: Blacks & Hispanics), when they are FAR more likely to be shot by cops or the neighbor with the arsenal.
As you know, I've agreed with your general point for quite a while. As something of a student of irregular warfare, I know there is no force on the earth that is going to win against a government that wants to kill you.
Sri Lanka is my favourite example, mostly because people don't realise what happened there (or can find it on a map...). Outside of Hezbollah and FARC, the Tigers had probably the word's best armed and trained irregular force, which used a mixture of terrorism and guerrilla warfare against the mostly Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka for decades. They even had their own naval forces...nothing that could win against a real navy, mind you, but enough to do hit and run amphibious strikes, or intercept civilian shipping.
In 2009, the Tigers were almost entirely wiped out. Why? The Sri Lankan government essentially said "we're tired of your bullshit" and went on a campaign of ethnic cleansing and near genocide against the Tamil people. Entire villages were burnt down because of suspected links to known Tigers (like a family member of said Tiger living there) and much of the remaining population were interred in concentration camps. Torture and drug-enhanced interrogation were used to find the location of rebel bases and they were bombed from the air and hit by heavy artillery, before a ground campaign of total warfare was used to flush out the survivours.
The Tamil Tigers were broken as a military and political force during this campaign. And most of the world stayed silent while the Sri Lankan government went about their work.
Rebellions typically only win under two circumstances:
1) Elite defections. Members of the political elite, along with security and military forces, defect to the side of the rebels. Essentially changes the rebellion into a Civil War. What happened in Libya and is happening in Syria right now.
2) The rebels have a strong enough group identity (religious/ethnic/linguistic) and are geographically concentrated and are supported by an outside power and the geography is favourable enough that they can effectively secede. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are your two prime examples here.
There are exceptions to this, and wars I don't know enough about to comment on (the Chinese revolution, for example). But by and large, that's how you win.
I can't help but notice that most people stockpiling arms for the NWO are not spies or military people (and when they are, they're usually undercover and going to snitch on all their buddies) and are usually white dudes who don't get on well with most people (see Sano's post for more). Not exactly likely contenders.
Quote from: Cain on January 02, 2013, 05:44:40 PM
As you know, I've agreed with your general point for quite a while. As something of a student of irregular warfare, I know there is no force on the earth that is going to win against a government that wants to kill you.
Sri Lanka is my favourite example, mostly because people don't realise what happened there (or can find it on a map...). Outside of Hezbollah and FARC, the Tigers had probably the word's best armed and trained irregular force, which used a mixture of terrorism and guerrilla warfare against the mostly Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka for decades. They even had their own naval forces...nothing that could win against a real navy, mind you, but enough to do hit and run amphibious strikes, or intercept civilian shipping.
In 2009, the Tigers were almost entirely wiped out. Why? The Sri Lankan government essentially said "we're tired of your bullshit" and went on a campaign of ethnic cleansing and near genocide against the Tamil people. Entire villages were burnt down because of suspected links to known Tigers (like a family member of said Tiger living there) and much of the remaining population were interred in concentration camps. Torture and drug-enhanced interrogation were used to find the location of rebel bases and they were bombed from the air and hit by heavy artillery, before a ground campaign of total warfare was used to flush out the survivours.
If the insurgent is a fish that swims in the lake of the population, then one method of dealing with him is to
drain the lake. It works. Popular fronts normally can't succeed against a ruthless government, because the insurgents' supporters are by definition cowards (or they themselves would be insurgents).
Quote
I can't help but notice that most people stockpiling arms for the NWO are not spies or military people (and when they are, they're usually undercover and going to snitch on all their buddies) and are usually white dudes who don't get on well with most people (see Sano's post for more). Not exactly likely contenders.
Yep. They don't need none of that there hippie-ass "diplomacy" or "social skills", because they have GUNS. And as long as they have GUNS, they are John Wayne, Dirty Harry, Rambo, etc. The silent psychopathic hero that kills everything that's bad, and is admired for it.
Well, admired for it by other bitter, alienated freaks, anyway. And that has to count for
something.
Hey Roger,
Don't know if you (or anyone else in this thread) have come across this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Living-Guns-Liberals-Second-Amendment/dp/1610391691/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357149647&sr=8-1&
keywords=living+with+guns
I saw the author doing an interview on the history of gun legislation and it was an eye opening experience. He made the point that the 2nd Amendment was not a new idea but merely existed to enshrine existing rights carried over from English law. (Cue the delicious irony that 99.9% of all Brits think Americans are impossibly stupid and irresponsible for loving guns so much.)
He then went on to say that gun legislation and control has always existed even back in ye olde colonial 'founding father' times that Conservatives seem to love so much. People were required to serve in militias as needed and if they didn't have their own weapon, the town would rent them one - all of which was registered and recorded. Interestingly, no one ever mentioned guns for either hunting or self defense.
Other interesting side avenues was the fact that, well established towns in the so called 'wild west' had gun control and it was a legal requirement that visitors turned their fire arms over to the sheriff. If you were not freezing your ass off in a little shack on the frontiers, there was gun control. The 'everyone packing heat in the old West' notion has been greatly over stated by that bastion of accuracy 'Hollywood'. (This also ties in nicely with Nigel's point about puncturing the myth of the 'rugged individualist'.) The rugged individualist also had to hand over his gun and if he didn't, he was in deep shit - which is funny because the author mentioned that the legendary OK Corral incident was, a dispute that owed itself in part, to the unwillingness to comply with gun surrender laws. [He also got into the issues concerning concealed carry and why that is a hangover from the popularity in the Southern states for pistol dueling.]
Perhaps what was most startling was there was a time when the NRA actually was in support of measures following the rash 1960s assassinations (Kennedys & MLK.) Back then, even Charleton Heston was behind it, it was only later that he got entrenched into the 'first step to tyranny' meme.
Seems that the NRA took a new approach in the 80s which took the form of 'the police can't protect you, do it yourself' and have been flogging it ever since. The whole notion that 'Freedom = Own a gun' as representing American values and history doesn't pan out on closer examination. There has always been laws surrounding fire arms and it began with the English...lol
What the NRA are really doing (IMHO) is playing upon what has really been the issue for much of the 20th century which is 'the freedom to be a consumer'. Tell people absolutely anything and everything to make them want your product and do absolutely anything and everything to make sure that access to said product is entirely unimpeded - no matter how impractical, dangerous or irrelevant that product may be. All the better if you can push the emotional 'patriotism button' and cite authority based on a convenient, revisionist view of history.
QuoteHe made the point that the 2nd Amendment was not a new idea but merely existed to enshrine existing rights carried over from English law. (Cue the delicious irony that 99.9% of all Brits think Americans are impossibly stupid and irresponsible for loving guns so much.)
Well, that's just the British, not knowing their own history (nothing new there). In Victorian England, you could buy a gun for personal use, no questions asked, no forms to fill in. A gentleman was practically required to own at least one handgun and one hunting rifle.
Quote from: Mangrove on January 02, 2013, 06:31:39 PM
Seems that the NRA took a new approach in the 80s which took the form of 'the police can't protect you, do it yourself' and have been flogging it ever since. The whole notion that 'Freedom = Own a gun' as representing American values and history doesn't pan out on closer examination. There has always been laws surrounding fire arms and it began with the English...lol
Fact: In Iraq, before we got rid of Saddam, you could own a firearm.
Firearms are never, and have never, been a guarantee or even an indicator of freedom.
I'm still pro-gun, of course...And in a world of inconsistencies, I see no reason to worry about that particular inconsistency.
Thing is, any nation who would make owning firearms a constitutional - rather than a statuatory - right, is by definition a country in which the inmates run the asylum.
I'm not sure I'd have it any other way. My country is pathologically insane, but somehow it still works.
I feel like I live in a Terry Pratchett novel.
I wish I lived in one. Because then, the practical jokes would make sense, instead of the constant banana peel gag.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 02, 2013, 07:03:19 PM
I wish I lived in one. Because then, the practical jokes would make sense, instead of the constant banana peel gag.
You do live in one. And those aren't practical jokes, it's just
business.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 05:50:07 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 02, 2013, 05:44:40 PM
As you know, I've agreed with your general point for quite a while. As something of a student of irregular warfare, I know there is no force on the earth that is going to win against a government that wants to kill you.
Sri Lanka is my favourite example, mostly because people don't realise what happened there (or can find it on a map...). Outside of Hezbollah and FARC, the Tigers had probably the word's best armed and trained irregular force, which used a mixture of terrorism and guerrilla warfare against the mostly Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka for decades. They even had their own naval forces...nothing that could win against a real navy, mind you, but enough to do hit and run amphibious strikes, or intercept civilian shipping.
In 2009, the Tigers were almost entirely wiped out. Why? The Sri Lankan government essentially said "we're tired of your bullshit" and went on a campaign of ethnic cleansing and near genocide against the Tamil people. Entire villages were burnt down because of suspected links to known Tigers (like a family member of said Tiger living there) and much of the remaining population were interred in concentration camps. Torture and drug-enhanced interrogation were used to find the location of rebel bases and they were bombed from the air and hit by heavy artillery, before a ground campaign of total warfare was used to flush out the survivours.
If the insurgent is a fish that swims in the lake of the population, then one method of dealing with him is to drain the lake. It works. Popular fronts normally can't succeed against a ruthless government, because the insurgents' supporters are by definition cowards (or they themselves would be insurgents).
Quote
I can't help but notice that most people stockpiling arms for the NWO are not spies or military people (and when they are, they're usually undercover and going to snitch on all their buddies) and are usually white dudes who don't get on well with most people (see Sano's post for more). Not exactly likely contenders.
Yep. They don't need none of that there hippie-ass "diplomacy" or "social skills", because they have GUNS. And as long as they have GUNS, they are John Wayne, Dirty Harry, Rambo, etc. The silent psychopathic hero that kills everything that's bad, and is admired for it.
Well, admired for it by other bitter, alienated freaks, anyway. And that has to count for something.
They tend to destroy what they don't understand. Which could be almost anything.
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on January 02, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
They tend to destroy what they don't understand. Which could be almost anything.
Shit, yes. If John Wayne was ever able to reach across time, he'd have pistol-whipped Jefferson to death for being a liberal hippie.
Quote from: Cain on January 02, 2013, 06:48:39 PM
QuoteHe made the point that the 2nd Amendment was not a new idea but merely existed to enshrine existing rights carried over from English law. (Cue the delicious irony that 99.9% of all Brits think Americans are impossibly stupid and irresponsible for loving guns so much.)
Well, that's just the British, not knowing their own history (nothing new there). In Victorian England, you could buy a gun for personal use, no questions asked, no forms to fill in. A gentleman was practically required to own at least one handgun and one hunting rifle.
When/how did Britain end up being a largely gun-free nation with some of the strictest laws?
Quote from: Mangrove on January 02, 2013, 07:48:45 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 02, 2013, 06:48:39 PM
QuoteHe made the point that the 2nd Amendment was not a new idea but merely existed to enshrine existing rights carried over from English law. (Cue the delicious irony that 99.9% of all Brits think Americans are impossibly stupid and irresponsible for loving guns so much.)
Well, that's just the British, not knowing their own history (nothing new there). In Victorian England, you could buy a gun for personal use, no questions asked, no forms to fill in. A gentleman was practically required to own at least one handgun and one hunting rifle.
When/how did Britain end up being a largely gun-free nation with some of the strictest laws?
Probably because England has had a long-term love affair with paternal-type fascism?
1920 Firearms Act started it off, really, though there was some pistol legislation in 1903.
Basically, post-WWI fear of social unrest, Communism and crime led to the need for licences to buy firearms, and to provide reasons for wanting them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 07:15:18 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on January 02, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
They tend to destroy what they don't understand. Which could be almost anything.
Shit, yes. If John Wayne was ever able to reach across time, he'd have pistol-whipped Jefferson to death for being a liberal hippie.
I tried to explain Separation of Church and State and the religious philosophy of the founding fathers to a Texan bagger yesterday.
He countered with LALALALALA NOT LISTENING FOX FOX FOX BILL O'REILLY GABBA GABBA FUCK, of course. :lol:
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on January 02, 2013, 07:51:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 07:15:18 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on January 02, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
They tend to destroy what they don't understand. Which could be almost anything.
Shit, yes. If John Wayne was ever able to reach across time, he'd have pistol-whipped Jefferson to death for being a liberal hippie.
I tried to explain Separation of Church and State and the religious philosophy of the founding fathers to a Texan bagger yesterday.
He countered with LALALALALA NOT LISTENING FOX FOX FOX BILL O'REILLY GABBA GABBA FUCK, of course. :lol:
You can't argue with mythology, Stella. And why even bother? Every time I talk to a teabagger, I get a little dumber. It's not worth it.
I dunno. I don't really think Lincoln's assassination was a bad thing on the long run. We'd never have gotten the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments he'd have lived, since that was Radical Republicans' idea and he was not keen on either the faction or (eta: or would have been) the amendments as he thought(eta:/would have thought) they were too extreme. I don't think Post Reconstruction would have ultimately been any different and the color line would have still be ruthlessly enforced, if not more harshly. The Radical Republicans actually sort of cared about the newly freed population, though, and Lincoln had enough clout (which, Jackson, his VP, didn't when he tried to carry out Lincoln's intended program) to have stopped it.
/historical tangent
Anyway, these are all good and very interesting points.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 07:01:24 PM
Thing is, any nation who would make owning firearms a constitutional - rather than a statuatory - right, is by definition a country in which the inmates run the asylum.
I'm not sure I'd have it any other way. My country is pathologically insane, but somehow it still works.
For now, I suspect.
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on January 02, 2013, 07:51:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 07:15:18 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on January 02, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
They tend to destroy what they don't understand. Which could be almost anything.
Shit, yes. If John Wayne was ever able to reach across time, he'd have pistol-whipped Jefferson to death for being a liberal hippie.
I tried to explain Separation of Church and State and the religious philosophy of the founding fathers to a Texan bagger yesterday.
He countered with LALALALALA NOT LISTENING FOX FOX FOX BILL O'REILLY GABBA GABBA FUCK, of course. :lol:
Ain't that always the way?
And yeah it really has become mythology. Bootstraps and GUNS GUARANTEE MAH FREEDOM. Two things you'll never be able to persuade most Americans are wrong.
Quote from: Cain on January 02, 2013, 07:51:28 PM
1920 Firearms Act started it off, really, though there was some pistol legislation in 1903.
Basically, post-WWI fear of social unrest, Communism and crime led to the need for licences to buy firearms, and to provide reasons for wanting them.
Thank you, sir!
I did wonder if this was connected to WWI.
Quote from: Juana Go? on January 02, 2013, 07:59:43 PM
And yeah it really has become mythology. Bootstraps and GUNS GUARANTEE MAH FREEDOM. Two things you'll never be able to persuade most Americans are wrong.
I support gun ownership for entirely different reasons:
1. They're FUN.
2. An armed country is by definition a dangerous country...And "safe" is a BAD condition for primates. So, while everything else becomes safer, we should at least keep THAT hazard around.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 07:53:16 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on January 02, 2013, 07:51:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 07:15:18 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on January 02, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
They tend to destroy what they don't understand. Which could be almost anything.
Shit, yes. If John Wayne was ever able to reach across time, he'd have pistol-whipped Jefferson to death for being a liberal hippie.
I tried to explain Separation of Church and State and the religious philosophy of the founding fathers to a Texan bagger yesterday.
He countered with LALALALALA NOT LISTENING FOX FOX FOX BILL O'REILLY GABBA GABBA FUCK, of course. :lol:
You can't argue with mythology, Stella. And why even bother? Every time I talk to a teabagger, I get a little dumber. It's not worth it.
I know. I just wanted to watch him turn purple.
If I do this and one of them gets an aneurysm, am I immune from prosecution? :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 08:02:21 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on January 02, 2013, 07:59:43 PM
And yeah it really has become mythology. Bootstraps and GUNS GUARANTEE MAH FREEDOM. Two things you'll never be able to persuade most Americans are wrong.
I support gun ownership for entirely different reasons:
1. They're FUN.
2. An armed country is by definition a dangerous country...And "safe" is a BAD condition for primates. So, while everything else becomes safer, we should at least keep THAT hazard around.
I would add to that the very reasonable "hunt your food" argument, although that argument doesn't make a good case for assault rifles and such.
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on January 02, 2013, 08:06:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 07:53:16 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on January 02, 2013, 07:51:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 07:15:18 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on January 02, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
They tend to destroy what they don't understand. Which could be almost anything.
Shit, yes. If John Wayne was ever able to reach across time, he'd have pistol-whipped Jefferson to death for being a liberal hippie.
I tried to explain Separation of Church and State and the religious philosophy of the founding fathers to a Texan bagger yesterday.
He countered with LALALALALA NOT LISTENING FOX FOX FOX BILL O'REILLY GABBA GABBA FUCK, of course. :lol:
You can't argue with mythology, Stella. And why even bother? Every time I talk to a teabagger, I get a little dumber. It's not worth it.
I know. I just wanted to watch him turn purple.
If I do this and one of them gets an aneurysm, am I immune from prosecution? :lulz:
Yeah, pretty sure that falls under "protected speech".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 02, 2013, 08:08:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 08:02:21 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on January 02, 2013, 07:59:43 PM
And yeah it really has become mythology. Bootstraps and GUNS GUARANTEE MAH FREEDOM. Two things you'll never be able to persuade most Americans are wrong.
I support gun ownership for entirely different reasons:
1. They're FUN.
2. An armed country is by definition a dangerous country...And "safe" is a BAD condition for primates. So, while everything else becomes safer, we should at least keep THAT hazard around.
I would add to that the very reasonable "hunt your food" argument, although that argument doesn't make a good case for assault rifles and such.
1. The 2nd amendment has never been about hunting.
2. Balls. I am FAR more accurate with an assault rifle, on account of the pistol grip. Also, they don't fill the animal with buckshot, and they still kill quicker (ever chase a wounded deer?). They're a perfect weapon for hunting.
Another fun thing to point out to teabaggers is this: Suppose the government DID care about said teabagger (or his guns) enough to come after him. Are they going to come for him at his house, at 5 PM? Or is more likely that they'll just grab his ass at the grocery store when he has his hands full, or at the bar where he can't bring his gun (and he's too drunk to do anything)?
If they DID come for him, they'd do that, and he'd go along quietly.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 08:19:13 PM
Another fun thing to point out to teabaggers is this: Suppose the government DID care about said teabagger (or his guns) enough to come after him. Are they going to come for him at his house, at 5 PM? Or is more likely that they'll just grab his ass at the grocery store when he has his hands full, or at the bar where he can't bring his gun (and he's too drunk to do anything)?
If they DID come for him, they'd do that, and he'd go along quietly.
Saving that one. The
coup de grâce. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 05:00:35 PM
Let me expand on that.
Okay, so we have this huge population, and we have about one gun per two people. This obviously makes for a potentially dangerous situation.
But if Jon Q Public can be controlled anyway, by popular media and pre-packaged, shrink-wrapped "resistance movements" provided by the same people fucking John Q Public, then the potential danger is meaningless.
Think of it this way...My dog is HUGE, and is perfectly capable of ripping me literally limb from limb. However, there's no danger, because my dog is incapable of forming the intent to do me harm. It not only doesn't occur to him, it CAN'T occur to him. It's simply not in his mental framework.
So nuts with guns? They're a danger to you and I...Recent events have proven as much. But a danger to the government? Not even close.
It's actually even more than that, we have 88 guns per 100 people.
Quote from: Pergamos on January 02, 2013, 08:50:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 05:00:35 PM
Let me expand on that.
Okay, so we have this huge population, and we have about one gun per two people. This obviously makes for a potentially dangerous situation.
But if Jon Q Public can be controlled anyway, by popular media and pre-packaged, shrink-wrapped "resistance movements" provided by the same people fucking John Q Public, then the potential danger is meaningless.
Think of it this way...My dog is HUGE, and is perfectly capable of ripping me literally limb from limb. However, there's no danger, because my dog is incapable of forming the intent to do me harm. It not only doesn't occur to him, it CAN'T occur to him. It's simply not in his mental framework.
So nuts with guns? They're a danger to you and I...Recent events have proven as much. But a danger to the government? Not even close.
It's actually even more than that, we have 88 guns per 100 people.
Are you counting cops and the military?
no. I got the numbers off Wikipedia, and it's civilian guns. That deosn't include the military, I don't think it includes cops.
Quote from: Pergamos on January 02, 2013, 09:53:44 PM
no. I got the numbers off Wikipedia, and it's civilian guns. That deosn't include the military, I don't think it includes cops.
Wow. That's AMAZING. :lulz: I'd heard 50%. We can't afford to give poor people medical treatment, but boy howdy, can we arm up!
I'm pretty sure that number includes children.
You may just have more civilian owned guns than able bodied adults in your country.
Quote from: :regret: on January 04, 2013, 12:21:32 PM
I'm pretty sure that number includes children.
You may just have more civilian owned guns than able bodied adults in your country.
But we've still managed to pedant my point to death.
Details don't kill points; pedants with details do.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 04, 2013, 03:20:14 PM
Details don't kill points; pedants with details do.
Oh, well, these things happen.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 02, 2013, 05:17:46 PM
This might have been covered already, but is there a possibility that the guns themselves create a general atmosphere of Fear and Paranoia which is then used as an excuse to limit freedoms? So the tools given to protect our freedom actually serves to limit them.
Oh hell yes. "There's nothing to fear but fear itself", and fear is being used as the fulcrum for prying our rights away from us.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 05:50:07 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 02, 2013, 05:44:40 PM
As you know, I've agreed with your general point for quite a while. As something of a student of irregular warfare, I know there is no force on the earth that is going to win against a government that wants to kill you.
Sri Lanka is my favourite example, mostly because people don't realise what happened there (or can find it on a map...). Outside of Hezbollah and FARC, the Tigers had probably the word's best armed and trained irregular force, which used a mixture of terrorism and guerrilla warfare against the mostly Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka for decades. They even had their own naval forces...nothing that could win against a real navy, mind you, but enough to do hit and run amphibious strikes, or intercept civilian shipping.
In 2009, the Tigers were almost entirely wiped out. Why? The Sri Lankan government essentially said "we're tired of your bullshit" and went on a campaign of ethnic cleansing and near genocide against the Tamil people. Entire villages were burnt down because of suspected links to known Tigers (like a family member of said Tiger living there) and much of the remaining population were interred in concentration camps. Torture and drug-enhanced interrogation were used to find the location of rebel bases and they were bombed from the air and hit by heavy artillery, before a ground campaign of total warfare was used to flush out the survivours.
If the insurgent is a fish that swims in the lake of the population, then one method of dealing with him is to drain the lake. It works. Popular fronts normally can't succeed against a ruthless government, because the insurgents' supporters are by definition cowards (or they themselves would be insurgents).
Quote
I can't help but notice that most people stockpiling arms for the NWO are not spies or military people (and when they are, they're usually undercover and going to snitch on all their buddies) and are usually white dudes who don't get on well with most people (see Sano's post for more). Not exactly likely contenders.
Yep. They don't need none of that there hippie-ass "diplomacy" or "social skills", because they have GUNS. And as long as they have GUNS, they are John Wayne, Dirty Harry, Rambo, etc. The silent psychopathic hero that kills everything that's bad, and is admired for it.
Well, admired for it by other bitter, alienated freaks, anyway. And that has to count for something.
I heart this post!
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 04, 2013, 04:18:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 02, 2013, 05:17:46 PM
This might have been covered already, but is there a possibility that the guns themselves create a general atmosphere of Fear and Paranoia which is then used as an excuse to limit freedoms? So the tools given to protect our freedom actually serves to limit them.
Oh hell yes. "There's nothing to fear but fear itself", and fear is being used as the fulcrum for prying our rights away from us.
And it WORKS because freedom means responsibility (actual responsibility, not the gabble mouthed by the libertarians), and that IS scary to a lot of people to begin with. How hard, then, would it be to amplify those fears?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 04, 2013, 04:38:04 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 04, 2013, 04:18:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 02, 2013, 05:17:46 PM
This might have been covered already, but is there a possibility that the guns themselves create a general atmosphere of Fear and Paranoia which is then used as an excuse to limit freedoms? So the tools given to protect our freedom actually serves to limit them.
Oh hell yes. "There's nothing to fear but fear itself", and fear is being used as the fulcrum for prying our rights away from us.
And it WORKS because freedom means responsibility (actual responsibility, not the gabble mouthed by the libertarians), and that IS scary to a lot of people to begin with. How hard, then, would it be to amplify those fears?
Incredible easy... and it WORKS.