What's new
By:

yet another stupid death in children gun related accident...yes, in USA of course.

fishonjazz said:
Yup.
Government acting like tyrants is simply too rare and unlikely to have that be the basis for the 2nd amendment.

That's some paranoid thinking.
Click to expand...

Paranoid? Just thinking about my lifetime, I've seen atrocities committed by 10-20 different governments against their citizens (China, Cambodia, Serbia, Bosnia, Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda, Iraq, Uganda, Yugoslavia, ...) that could very possibly have been prevented if the citizens had had the right to bear arms. And that's not even counting obvious examples such as Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Or for that matter the French Revolution. It is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes that they disarm the citizenry. I don't know of any exceptions, perhaps you do.

And thinking that citizens and thier guns are going to fight the government in some kind of war as being a good thing is idiocy. Either the citizens would get thier assess kicked or it would be even, in which case everyone would lose
Click to expand...

How often has that happened in the U.S.? Maybe once, if you call the Civil War that type of conflict (which I don't). The point is that having an armed citizenry PREVENTS that type of conflict. Or at least that point of view seems reasonable to me, whereas your point of view seems less so.
 
colton said:
Paranoid? Just thinking about my lifetime, I've seen atrocities committed by 10-20 different governments against their citizens (China, Cambodia, Serbia, Bosnia, Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda, Iraq, Uganda, Yugoslavia, ...) that could very possibly have been prevented if the citizens had had the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

l-m-f-a-o.

My family is from Kosovo. Nearly every single one of my relatives would laugh in your face if you told them "well the Kosovo War wouldn't have happened if you guys had an institutionalized right to bear arms!!!".


And that's not even counting obvious examples such as Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Or for that matter the French Revolution. It is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes that they disarm the citizenry. I don't know of any exceptions, perhaps you do.

How often has that happened in the U.S.? Maybe once, if you call the Civil War that type of conflict (which I don't). The point is that having an armed citizenry PREVENTS that type of conflict. Or at least that point of view seems reasonable to me, whereas your point of view seems less so.
Click to expand...


They call for the disarming-- but are they always successful? No. How do you think that citizen-armies like the KLA could have gotten their weapons after "Serbia disarmed them"? Not to mention the fact that an armed ground-infantry simply has no ****ing chance against a regime set on ethnic-cleansing. There is simply no way you would know, and who can blame you-- you grew up in the U.S. You simply do not understand. If NATO didn't intervene and sanction Serbia, we would have been flattened.

Not to mention things like this: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/25/...o-disarm-paramilitary-police.html?ref=croatia

You are truly painting broadly with a single brush, while ignoring the particular contexts, and intricacies of each conflict that you named. Comparing the lack of genocides in a nation that is nationalistic based on cultural grounds as opposed to ethnic grounds is laughable, and your cookie-cutter treatment of a vast array of unique conflicts is doubly-laughable.

Quit twisting occurrences to suit your agenda. It weakens your reputation as a reasonable poster here.
 
Honestly, I don't even think I'm that anti-guns. I straddle the middle, simply because I have not looked into the issue well enough to independently choose an opinion.

With that said, the argument for the right to bear arms because it stops ethnic cleansing (with the examples used in this thread) is disingenuous and incorrect. I know for a fact that there are much better justifications for the 2nd amendment, so let's stick to those instead.
 
dalamon said:
cuz the founding fathers knew that governments would ascertain warfare that could wipe out entire cities, regions-- even countries, with a blink of an eye.

You're right tho. Man, a bunch of hillbillies with semi-automatic rifles will sure show them!
Click to expand...

You are imagining the conflict very incorrectly, imo.

If the U.S. government were to become "tyrannical" (by whatever definition we want to use to define tyrannical) they would be oppressing some on behalf of, or to the benefit of others. So it wouldn't be the U.S. government against all citizens, using their full military might to keep us all oppressed.

I've said it before, but my experience in the U.S. Navy is that the military would not simply oppress the masses. In fact, it is illegal for the U.S. military to perform any domestic police actions. Also, all members of the U.S. military swear an oath to defend the U.S. constitution, not the president, not the government.

So, anyway. Imagine civilians, some opposed to this new tyrannical government, some indifferent and some who support it. The antis don't all live in the same town. The government can't just bomb out residential neighborhoods for good measure.

The right to bear arms does not mean local bands of militia fighters meet the U.S. military on the battlefield and stand their ground. It does, however, mean that to oppress certain groups to the point that they have nothing to lose means that when government agents try to enforce whatever oppressive measures against them will have an extremely arduous and risky task.

It raises the price of tyranny, hopefully to a level high enough that it isn't worth it.

It also draws a definitive line. If the government will use military force (which I don't think is really possible since U.S. soldiers wouldn't carry out such orders) against civilians it will make it harder for the public at large to be indifferent or to support the government.

So, anyway, lyfao all you want. You are not considering realistic scenarios when you soo gleefully chop down your straw man.
 
Gameface said:
So, anyway, lyfao all you want. You are not considering realistic scenarios when you soo gleefully chop down your straw man.
Click to expand...

Likewise. I consider your scenarios equally unrealistic. Furthermore, I consider the justifications of other ethnic cleansing operations in the 21st century as a verification of the veracity of the 2nd amendment extremely problematic-- which you curiously sidestepped, and didn't address.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dalamon said:
Likewise. I consider your scenarios equally unrealistic. Furthermore, I consider the justifications of other ethnic cleansing operations in the 21st century as a verification of the veracity of the 2nd amendment extremely problematic-- which you curiously sidestepped, and didn't address.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I didn't sidestep it because it was not the post I was responding to. I think in situations where there are clear ethnic lines, where the central government, military leaders and vast majority of soldiers are all of the same ethnicity to be a poor situation for an armed citizenry to stand against them. In such situations neighborhoods are often dominated by a particular ethnicity. It isn't hard to convince the enlisted soldiers that the people they are attacking are actually their enemies. It isn't politically costly to bombard residential areas.

I don't think the 2nd Amendment saves Kosovo. Although, I'll admit, I'm not especially familiar with the series of events that took place, nor the specific issues that initiated the divide, nor the political situation before, during or after.

I'm casually engaged in this thread. I'm not going to do hours of research to substantiate my points. So, as I always say, take my posts for what they're worth. My be worth a little, may be not worth a ****.
 
dalamon said:
Likewise. I consider your scenarios equally unrealistic. Furthermore, I consider the justifications of other ethnic cleansing operations in the 21st century as a verification of the veracity of the 2nd amendment extremely problematic-- which you curiously sidestepped, and didn't address.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You find all of my scenarios to be unrealistic?

You think the U.S. military would by-into a campaign to oppress the U.S. public? There would not be mass desertion? There would not be resistance within military leadership?

Is that one of "my" scenarios you didn't agree with?
 
Gameface said:
You find all of my scenarios to be unrealistic?

You think the U.S. military would by-into a campaign to oppress the U.S. public? There would not be mass desertion? There would not be resistance within military leadership?

Is that one of "my" scenarios you didn't agree with?
Click to expand...

If America becomes a tyrannical regime, then yes. And let's be frank, the 2nd amendment is nowhere near one of the largest factors protecting the citizens of America from tyranny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
yet another stupid death in children gun related accident...yes, in USA of co...

Gameface said:
I didn't sidestep it because it was not the post I was responding to. I think in situations where there are clear ethnic lines, where the central government, military leaders and vast majority of soldiers are all of the same ethnicity to be a poor situation for an armed citizenry to stand against them. In such situations neighborhoods are often dominated by a particular ethnicity. It isn't hard to convince the enlisted soldiers that the people they are attacking are actually their enemies. It isn't politically costly to bombard residential areas.
Click to expand...

Ethnicity is not the only factor that can be divisive. Keep this in mind.

i don't think the 2nd Amendment saves Kosovo. Although, I'll admit, I'm not especially familiar with the series of events that took place, nor the specific issues that initiated the divide, nor the political situation before, during or after.
Click to expand...
Good-- because many Albanians HAD institutionalized possessions of guns prior to war breaking out. And they still do.

I'm casually engaged in this thread. I'm not going to do hours of research to substantiate my points. So, as I always say, take my posts for what they're worth. My be worth a little, may be not worth a ****.
Click to expand...

They're worth much more than most. Your points are certainly eons better than Colton's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dalamon said:
If America becomes a tyrannical regime, then yes. And let's be frank, the 2nd amendment is nowhere near one of the largest factors protecting the citizens of America from tyranny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

For the record I think the first is the most important, closely followed by the fourth. The fourth is essentially lost already and the "constitutionalists" who support the second are nowhere to be found on that one.
 
Gameface said:
You are imagining the conflict very incorrectly, imo.

If the U.S. government were to become "tyrannical" (by whatever definition we want to use to define tyrannical) they would be oppressing some on behalf of, or to the benefit of others. So it wouldn't be the U.S. government against all citizens, using their full military might to keep us all oppressed.

I've said it before, but my experience in the U.S. Navy is that the military would not simply oppress the masses. In fact, it is illegal for the U.S. military to perform any domestic police actions. Also, all members of the U.S. military swear an oath to defend the U.S. constitution, not the president, not the government.

So, anyway. Imagine civilians, some opposed to this new tyrannical government, some indifferent and some who support it. The antis don't all live in the same town. The government can't just bomb out residential neighborhoods for good measure.

The right to bear arms does not mean local bands of militia fighters meet the U.S. military on the battlefield and stand their ground. It does, however, mean that to oppress certain groups to the point that they have nothing to lose means that when government agents try to enforce whatever oppressive measures against them will have an extremely arduous and risky task.

It raises the price of tyranny, hopefully to a level high enough that it isn't worth it.

It also draws a definitive line. If the government will use military force (which I don't think is really possible since U.S. soldiers wouldn't carry out such orders) against civilians it will make it harder for the public at large to be indifferent or to support the government.

So, anyway, lyfao all you want. You are not considering realistic scenarios when you soo gleefully chop down your straw man.
Click to expand...


Just wanted to point something out on second reading...this ^ is not a pro-gun argument, like at all.
 
moevillini said:
What about "intentional" shootings that occur with firearms that are owned, purchased and/or possessed illegally? That to me is a larger problem than "accidental" shootings.

Don't quite know what the answer is, not do I have any idea if that is part of the discussion that QSH is concerned with, but that's a large part of the problem as I see it.


And to respond to Colton's comments about arming ourselves as protection from a tyrannical government, in many of the most tyrannical societies, it is the armed citizenry that provides the tyranny, not the government.
Click to expand...

I personally would like to see suicides separated out from the statistics. As well as a distinction between justified shootings, criminal on criminal shootings, criminal on innocent, and innocent on innocent.

Also, it is currently hard to make an argument for crimes prevented by the presence of a firearm possessed by a potential victim, because no such data is collected.
 
dalamon said:
l-m-f-a-o.

My family is from Kosovo. Nearly every single one of my relatives would laugh in your face if you told them "well the Kosovo War wouldn't have happened if you guys had an institutionalized right to bear arms!!!".





They call for the disarming-- but are they always successful? No. How do you think that citizen-armies like the KLA could have gotten their weapons after "Serbia disarmed them"? Not to mention the fact that an armed ground-infantry simply has no ****ing chance against a regime set on ethnic-cleansing. There is simply no way you would know, and who can blame you-- you grew up in the U.S. You simply do not understand. If NATO didn't intervene and sanction Serbia, we would have been flattened.

Not to mention things like this: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/25/...o-disarm-paramilitary-police.html?ref=croatia

You are truly painting broadly with a single brush, while ignoring the particular contexts, and intricacies of each conflict that you named. Comparing the lack of genocides in a nation that is nationalistic based on cultural grounds as opposed to ethnic grounds is laughable, and your cookie-cutter treatment of a vast array of unique conflicts is doubly-laughable.

Quit twisting occurrences to suit your agenda. It weakens your reputation as a reasonable poster here.
Click to expand...

I find Colton the most reasonable participant in this discussion. You need to consider the American experience in terms of the times and people involved just as you ask Colton to understand Kosovo.

I don't think our media tells us the truth about anything, so we need you to tell us what happened in Kosovo. For our history, people need to read the history from the libraries while the history can still be found there.
 
The US government is tyrannical and the right to bear arms wasn't enough to help the South after their right to secede was denied. Seems tyrannical, at least.

Y'all ever work a gun into the bedroom? Take advantage of the shape? Perhaps some roleplay ish? It's pretty boss.
 
I'm way more afraid of our democracy dying a slow death via the influence of big money than the government becoming tyrannical or some dictator taking charge via military coup.

The deregulation of the finance sector, tax cuts for the wealthy, selling of public lands, and the all out bribery associated with lobbyists poses a far greater threat to our nation than Fascism or Communism ever did.
 
Anyone who questions what I just said needs to merely take a glance at our neighbors to the north. They have far greater regulation on lobbying and on their finance sector. When 08 hit, they heard about it. But never felt the effects. Meanwhile, millions of Americans lost their 401ks.

Recently, Republicans pushed through deregulation that would allow banks to once again play Russian roulette with our savings. When they lose, our savings will be lost, and the government will once again have to bail them out.

Yay for lobbyists!
 
Will respond to GF and colton tomorrow night. Absolutely exhausted. Was bombed last night. Beers, Irish car bombs, shots. So tired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top