40 replies to this topic

[Cradle of Fish]

Paracelse, on 21 June 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

The same Red army that was in Afghanistan?    

No, I am referring to the Red army which trampled Germany in what the Russians call the Great Patriotic War. The Roman Legion was once the most powerful military in the world and that too waned.

[P4UL N0153]

Cradle of Fish, on 21 June 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

You don't have to love the result of the democratic process, just uphold it. If you do that you never have to worry about a violent and oppressive government. But I see people talking about violent revolution in order to overthrow the current system and frankly that is sheer madness. Madness and stupidity. Why on earth do you focus on one part of the constitition when the rest of it is there to prevent things from even getting to that stage? A constitution is not just a mandate for you to own guns and feel like a good citizen. The second amendment doesn't even mention guns. I am curious though, are you allowed under the second amendment to brandish a sword?

I understand your point, and I agree with it, up to a point. However, your understanding of the US Constitution is flawed. It Absolutely means carrying guns, and absolutely is designed so that the average person can offer armed resistance to an oppressive government.

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story

These are direct quotes from the founding fathers of the United States. It was always the intention that the population at large be armed with the most effective weapons possible, to first protect home, hearth and kin; and last to prevent a tyrranical goverment from controlling the populace and enslaving them.

questionmark, on 21 June 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

If the crime rate had anything to do with gun ownership the cops in America would be drinking coffee all day instead of chasing criminals.

Exactly my point.

Edited by Pauly Dangerously, 21 June 2012 - 08:19 PM.

[Cradle of Fish]

Pauly Dangerously, on 21 June 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

I understand your point, and I agree with it, up to a point. However, your understanding of the US Constitution is flawed. It Absolutely means carrying guns, and absolutely is designed so that the average person can offer armed resistance to an oppressive government.

It refers to arms. Thats anything from a nailboard to a katana to a knuckleduster to a hand grendade. There are also a lot of non-lethal weapons available. A taser will put an assailant down and is far less likely to kill them. We also have evolved in our options of combating oppression, Gandhi liberated India with nonviolent means, why can't you take a page from his book? Or would you say that if Gandhi was packing he might have survived the assassination attempt that claimed him?

Quote

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

There you go, a last resort. Fight gun control with your vote if you disagree with it. But be reasonable about it. Comparing something you don't like to the Holocaust is just plain stupid.

Quote

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

Power and violence aren't the same thing. Why is it that you take the most literal interpretation of that quote? In my opinion it is far more important to be armed with a sharp mind than a gun in a civilised society, and I might spin some people out by saying this but I think America is a civilised country.

Quote

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

Again, wits will get you much further in society than weapons. Why don't people put as much emphasis on the mental as the physical. I have an idea; because using guns make you feel powerful whereas using your brain makes you feel like a nerd.

Quote

These are direct quotes from the founding fathers of the United States.

You have to remember that the founding fathers were not infallible. In fact they were quite barbaric in some ways. They owned slaves, didn't give women the vote and settled disputes with pistol duels.

[Corp]

Wasn't part of the point of promoting arms so that the US could have a militia instead of a standing army (and thus cheaper for the government)? Which ended up being a rather crappy idea when they actually got into a fight. And guns give independence to the mind? Sports are too violence but guns are awesome? Ok then...the Founding Fathers were just human and not the saints many seem to make them out to be. While some were great men and very enlightened for their time others had plenty of blood on their hands. After all for all of Jefferson's support of people having guns to protect themselves he was in favour of wiping out Native tribes that tried to stop the American government from stealing their land.


I have no problem with people owning guns, buddy of mine has a bunch, but I've never really gotten the deep seeded fear some Americans have that they're guns are going to be taken away. This seems to come up every year or two and yet Americans are still heavily armed. Seems to have become a political trick. Vote for me because the other guy is a commie that will raise taxes and take your guns!

[Mr. Smith]

Wearer of Hats, on 21 June 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

Charlie, do you know that thwre were armed militas fighting the Germans from day one of the War. Do you know what being armed  did for these partisans? Got them killed by the better armed and trained soldiers and secret police. Having a gun in ocupied territory meant death, no questions asked.

I think too many people in some of those countries were actually glad the Germans invaded so they snitched on resisters. Parts of France were a good example of that.  Still, they were out gunned. German arms were very, very well made.  Collectors still pay 4-5 figures without batting an eye for working German WW2 guns. But Americans are very, very well armed too, and if we were actually invaded, say after a Govt collapse, well...Go Wolverines!

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Framling, on 21 June 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

I think too many people in some of those countries were actually glad the Germans invaded so they snitched on resisters. Parts of France were a good example of that.  Still, they were out gunned. German arms were very, very well made.  Collectors still pay 4-5 figures without batting an eye for working German WW2 guns. But Americans are very, very well armed too, and if we were actually invaded, say after a Govt collapse, well...Go Wolverines!

human nature my friend, any invaded country will have it's Quislings especially if it's a "post-Fall" society. Someone comes in and says "we'll give you running water again" and there'll be a queue to dob in the rabblerousers a week after you flush the toilet for the first time in however many months/years.
Quisling, BTW, did what he did to protect people from being slaughtered. Or was that Petain? One of the two.

[sam12six]

Cradle of Fish, on 21 June 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

It refers to arms. Thats anything from a nailboard to a katana to a knuckleduster to a hand grendade. There are also a lot of non-lethal weapons available. A taser will put an assailant down and is far less likely to kill them. We also have evolved in our options of combating oppression, Gandhi liberated India with nonviolent means, why can't you take a page from his book? Or would you say that if Gandhi was packing he might have survived the assassination attempt that claimed him?

By arms, it means weapons actually capable of fighting government agents should the need arise. In the event that there is a backlash to the government's continued deprivation of freedom, good luck with that coup via nailboard.

Cradle of Fish, on 21 June 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

There you go, a last resort. Fight gun control with your vote if you disagree with it. But be reasonable about it. Comparing something you don't like to the Holocaust is just plain stupid.

How is it stupid? It's obvious that governments intent on inflicting massive abuse on the citizenry tend to make disarming that citizenry the first step in the plan. It would be stupid to actually say that gun control was the cause of the Holocaust, but of course that's just the title the person who wrote the article invented.

Cradle of Fish, on 21 June 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Power and violence aren't the same thing. Why is it that you take the most literal interpretation of that quote? In my opinion it is far more important to be armed with a sharp mind than a gun in a civilised society, and I might spin some people out by saying this but I think America is a civilised country.

I completely agree that clear thinking is an absolute necessity when dealing with the political world. That said, can you agree that if a government is set on exterminating or unjustly incarcerating a large bunch of the population, that having guns would improve their chances of protecting themselves and their families?

Cradle of Fish, on 21 June 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Again, wits will get you much further in society than weapons. Why don't people put as much emphasis on the mental as the physical. I have an idea; because using guns make you feel powerful whereas using your brain makes you feel like a nerd.

The simple truth is that all governmental power is derived from violence (or more commonly, the threat of violence). If a government agent tells you to do something, you know that killing him or her will result in their sending more, killing them would result in their sending even more, until eventually you killed every government agent or were killed yourself - the latter being infinitely more likely. The threat may not be the first option, but it's always there - "You do what we say, or we'll MAKE you do what we say."

Cradle of Fish, on 21 June 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

You have to remember that the founding fathers were not infallible. In fact they were quite barbaric in some ways. They owned slaves, didn't give women the vote and settled disputes with pistol duels.

True and irrelevant.

What isn't irrelevant was that these statements were made by men who had personally experienced fighting for their freedom against what they considered a tyrannical government and wanted future generations of the new country to have that option in a worst case scenario.

Not everyone who opposes gun control is an anarchist who wants to burn the Pentagon to the ground, but the very fact that the population is well armed can make a government think twice about how much it will abuse its power.

[Cradle of Fish]

sam12six, on 22 June 2012 - 03:25 AM, said:

By arms, it means weapons actually capable of fighting government agents should the need arise. In the event that there is a backlash to the government's continued deprivation of freedom, good luck with that coup via nailboard.

I can forsee two kinds of government agents who might be coming for you; either they are doing their job out of fear of the oppressive regime or they are fanatics. If its the former then by shooting back you are killing otherwise decent people when nonviolent resistance is still an option. If it's the latter then it does not matter whether you are armed or not, they will kill you and the family you are trying to protect.

Quote

How is it stupid? It's obvious that governments intent on inflicting massive abuse on the citizenry tend to make disarming that citizenry the first step in the plan. It would be stupid to actually say that gun control was the cause of the Holocaust, but of course that's just the title the person who wrote the article invented.

True, but gun control isn't about disarmament. The general idea is to prevent the mentally unstable from having the means to commit great deals of violence and to limit access to excessively powerful weapons such as assault rifle. And as I have said, the gun control crowd are not setting up for a future coup, they want a society where there isn't a Columbine or V-Tech every couple of years. You can argue for the right to bear arms on multiple levels without having to resort to fantasy(for example, self defense and hunting).

Quote

I completely agree that clear thinking is an absolute necessity when dealing with the political world. That said, can you agree that if a government is set on exterminating or unjustly incarcerating a large bunch of the population, that having guns would improve their chances of protecting themselves and their families?

If it gets to that point it wont make a difference. You gun down one batch of agents in self defense and they are going to pursue you with renewed vigor, and I guarantee you will run out of ammunition long before they do. If the idea is to make it costly for them to carry out their oppression then nonviolent methods will work just as effectively, plus your hands get to stay clean.

Quote

The simple truth is that all governmental power is derived from violence (or more commonly, the threat of violence). If a government agent tells you to do something, you know that killing him or her will result in their sending more, killing them would result in their sending even more, until eventually you killed every government agent or were killed yourself - the latter being infinitely more likely. The threat may not be the first option, but it's always there - "You do what we say, or we'll MAKE you do what we say."

That is a very American idea of what government is, a shadowy body reigning over you ready to bust a cap in yo ass if you don't pay your taxes. Sure if you keep voting in the same people over and over again it might appear like that. Australia has a very similar system to the United States, in fact it's inspired by the American Constitution mixed with British Parliamentary Democracy(I like to think we've cherrypicked the best parts of both ) and we tend to see the government as an aparatus run by the people in order to provide services. The main difference between our nations is you had to fight for independance whereas we achieved ours peacefully - but you could easily argue that Great Britain learnt a valuable lesson from the American Revolution, which is why there is the Commonwealth, and the generally peaceful transitions from colonies to autonomous nations.

Quote

True and irrelevant.

What isn't irrelevant was that these statements were made by men who had personally experienced fighting for their freedom against what they considered a tyrannical government and wanted future generations of the new country to have that option in a worst case scenario.

They also wrote the rest of the constitution so that such a tyranny will never arise. Even the most meglomaniacal president could not institute such a system. They'd have to also control congress, which is democratically elected from all states, each with unique mindsets and interests. Then they'd have to control the Supreme Court, who are appointed for life. Then they would have to gain the support of the military, who are loyal to the nation and the constitution, not to mention the various governent agencies. Then and only then does it fall to the people to take up arms, but if they were so complacent that they did not act to prevent the rise of tyranny in the country they wouldn't fight anyway. Do you see how unrealistic the whole scenario is?

People are selfish. The entire capitalist system is based around the fact. What does anyone have to gain by installing a tyranny in the United States? Politicians are happy if they manage to pass a piece of legislation, give themselves a well deserved pay rise and feel like they've made a difference. You've gotta have a pretty big ego to run for president, but not one of them believes that ruining the nation in order to install themselves as dictator is worth it. There are only a few dictatorships that last the life of the dictator. Franco died and Spain decided it wanted to return to democracy. North Korea has lasted quite a while, but they are a backwater run by fanatics where people are starving to death to maintain the regime. Give it fifty years and they'll collapse. Democracy, while highly flawed in it's own unique ways, is the only system of government that truly stands the test of time. And everyone knows it.

Quote

Not everyone who opposes gun control is an anarchist who wants to burn the Pentagon to the ground, but the very fact that the population is well armed can make a government think twice about how much it will abuse its power.

True, but if you uphold one article of the constitution and not the others you are not a good citizen. They are the same as people who go on about their freedom of speech but don't vote. The constitution is open to some interpretation, it's true. Personally I think a well armed and regulated mind is a far more subtle and powerful weapon, the pen is mightier than the sword as the saying goes. Joe the Plumber's mind is not well armed, well regulated or subtle for that matter.

[Rafterman]

questionmark, on 21 June 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

If the crime rate had anything to do with gun ownership the cops in America would be drinking coffee all day instead of chasing criminals.

We can also flip that around considering that violent crime rates continue to drop while gun ownership continues to increase.

[sam12six]

Cradle of Fish, on 22 June 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I can forsee two kinds of government agents who might be coming for you; either they are doing their job out of fear of the oppressive regime or they are fanatics. If its the former then by shooting back you are killing otherwise decent people when nonviolent resistance is still an option. If it's the latter then it does not matter whether you are armed or not, they will kill you and the family you are trying to protect.

I agree... when you're talking about a single person. The right to bear arms wasn't instituted so a single person could overthrow the government. It was put in place so the populace on a larger scale would have some kind of chance if revolution became necessary.

Cradle of Fish, on 22 June 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

True, but gun control isn't about disarmament. The general idea is to prevent the mentally unstable from having the means to commit great deals of violence and to limit access to excessively powerful weapons such as assault rifle. And as I have said, the gun control crowd are not setting up for a future coup, they want a society where there isn't a Columbine or V-Tech every couple of years. You can argue for the right to bear arms on multiple levels without having to resort to fantasy(for example, self defense and hunting).

I can agree with everything here but the first sentence. Gun control SHOULDN'T be about disarmament, but about actual limits because I believe modern weaponry is far more destructive than anything the founders could have imagined. When most people talk about gun control though, they mean make it hard to impossible to get weapons, not just prevent massively destructive weapons from being readily available.

Cradle of Fish, on 22 June 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

If it gets to that point it wont make a difference. You gun down one batch of agents in self defense and they are going to pursue you with renewed vigor, and I guarantee you will run out of ammunition long before they do. If the idea is to make it costly for them to carry out their oppression then nonviolent methods will work just as effectively, plus your hands get to stay clean.

Hopefully I'm not invoking Godwin here (since the thread began with a mention of the Holocaust), but how successful were those targeted by Hitler's administration at talking themselves out of concentration camps? How many Japanese targeted for arbitrary incarceration during WWII were able to negotiate with the government and show them how wrong such an action was?

I really don't think our positions are that far apart. I just believe you're failing to acknowledge that under certain circumstances, armed resistance is a just action. While I hope never to be in a situation where it is necessary, I also believe the founders of the country would have wanted me and my fellow citizens to be well enough armed to have a chance of succeeding in such a scenario.

Cradle of Fish, on 22 June 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

That is a very American idea of what government is, a shadowy body reigning over you ready to bust a cap in yo ass if you don't pay your taxes. Sure if you keep voting in the same people over and over again it might appear like that. Australia has a very similar system to the United States, in fact it's inspired by the American Constitution mixed with British Parliamentary Democracy(I like to think we've cherrypicked the best parts of both ) and we tend to see the government as an aparatus run by the people in order to provide services. The main difference between our nations is you had to fight for independance whereas we achieved ours peacefully - but you could easily argue that Great Britain learnt a valuable lesson from the American Revolution, which is why there is the Commonwealth, and the generally peaceful transitions from colonies to autonomous nations.

I completely agree that the actual purpose of a government is to efficiently provide some services and speak with a collective voice for the people. The thing is, once a government starts making decisions that go against the vast majority of what the people want, it has betrayed its purpose.

Yes, technically no government can operate without the consent of the people (even if it's consent based on ignorance or lies). Any government in history would have instantly lost if 100% of the population simultaneously decided to march on government strongholds and overthrow it like some kind of populist zombie epidemic. Of course, that's never happened and never will. Virtually all coups are carried out by a minority of the population willing and able to take matters into their own hands.

Cradle of Fish, on 22 June 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

They also wrote the rest of the constitution so that such a tyranny will never arise. Even the most meglomaniacal president could not institute such a system. They'd have to also control congress, which is democratically elected from all states, each with unique mindsets and interests. Then they'd have to control the Supreme Court, who are appointed for life. Then they would have to gain the support of the military, who are loyal to the nation and the constitution, not to mention the various governent agencies. Then and only then does it fall to the people to take up arms, but if they were so complacent that they did not act to prevent the rise of tyranny in the country they wouldn't fight anyway. Do you see how unrealistic the whole scenario is?

In our case, it's not a single charismatic leader deciding that the country would be better off with a totalitarian rule. It's an ongoing process where freedom is stripped in small increments. People who don't follow politics closely (and until the internet, it was really impossible for the average person to do so) can only judge things by their own experience and if things haven't changed that dramatically in their lives, they don't worry about it. Right or wrong, that's human nature for the majority. I've been pretty shocked myself when reading early American history and seeing the sheer amount of freedom that we've lost.

As far as our pseudo Democracy, I completely agree that the founders wrote the Constitution with particular emphasis on not allowing tyranny to develop. In today's US though, we have politicians who can only realistically gain office when backed by the money of rich companies and people, and only keep office by continuing to make those financiers happy by doing their bidding even if it's counter to the welfare of the country.

Oversight of the government that was built into the original system is great. If the government acted wrongly, it would be brought to light during the trial. Now though, we don't necessarily get to have a trial (this only applies to them declaring you a terrorist at this point, but it's a foot in the door).

Look at how the US government operates: When concerns were raised that dropping bombs on suspected terrorists could kill a bunch of civilians and no actual terrorists, the government's solution to the dilemma was to redefine terrorist as anyone killed by one of the bombs.

It's personal opinion, but I believe our system has been corrupted to the point of being unfixable. I'm not saying I plan to get some friends together and march on the White House, just that I believe choice through vote is nonexistent these days. Beyond stump speech talking points, there's no discernable difference in how our politicians act on a national level (with a couple of obvious exceptions). The powers that be have created a very smart game where they get people divided over which party is good and which party is bad instead of stepping back and thinking that maybe the entire system needs to be scrapped (not the entire government, just the way the people choose the government).

As for the military's loyalty to the people and Constitution, I believe you're overstating it. I mean no insult to any particular member of the military, but all my friends who have been either military or cops have things they do on the job that they despise and believe are wrong, but they still do them. Why? To keep their jobs.

Now if the order came down to throw an individual soldier's family into a concentration camp, that individual would almost certainly balk. On the other hand, told someone else's family was a terrorist cell and needed to be locked up for public safety, I can imagine reluctance but not outright defiance. I hope you're right and I'm wrong about that.

Cradle of Fish, on 22 June 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

People are selfish. The entire capitalist system is based around the fact. What does anyone have to gain by installing a tyranny in the United States? Politicians are happy if they manage to pass a piece of legislation, give themselves a well deserved pay rise and feel like they've made a difference. You've gotta have a pretty big ego to run for president, but not one of them believes that ruining the nation in order to install themselves as dictator is worth it. There are only a few dictatorships that last the life of the dictator. Franco died and Spain decided it wanted to return to democracy. North Korea has lasted quite a while, but they are a backwater run by fanatics where people are starving to death to maintain the regime. Give it fifty years and they'll collapse. Democracy, while highly flawed in it's own unique ways, is the only system of government that truly stands the test of time. And everyone knows it.

Do they?

I'd counter that the only governments that even resembled democracies were those in their infancy (like the environment in which those founding fathers operated). Governments have always been ruled by an aristocracy (whether based on religion or money) and always will.

Cradle of Fish, on 22 June 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

True, but if you uphold one article of the constitution and not the others you are not a good citizen. They are the same as people who go on about their freedom of speech but don't vote. The constitution is open to some interpretation, it's true. Personally I think a well armed and regulated mind is a far more subtle and powerful weapon, the pen is mightier than the sword as the saying goes. Joe the Plumber's mind is not well armed, well regulated or subtle for that matter.

You keep talking about that intelligence. Are you of the impression that people are saying, "Get guns and do stupid things with them. That woudl be awesome!!"?

My impression of Joe the Plumber's mind seems quite consistent with yours.

[P4UL N0153]

Cradle of Fish, on 21 June 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Gandhi liberated India with nonviolent means, why can't you take a page from his book? Or would you say that if Gandhi was packing he might have survived the assassination attempt that claimed him?

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
- Mahatma Gandhi

And for good measure...

"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you ... it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
- Dalai Lama

Edited by Pauly Dangerously, 22 June 2012 - 07:11 PM.