Christ, you're the mirror image of Steve.101Walterton wrote:You win. You drew me in to what I knew would be a completely pointless fantasy ridden load of bollocks dressed up as a 'gun debate'.
Well, at least Steve cited studies.
Christ, you're the mirror image of Steve.101Walterton wrote:You win. You drew me in to what I knew would be a completely pointless fantasy ridden load of bollocks dressed up as a 'gun debate'.
Nice dig. I'll stick to living in the real world, I can't have a logical discussion with you whilst you claim to need a gun to protect you from the government. I dont know who or what you are trying to portray yourself as however you are far more likely to need it when the bailiffs come knocking for your overdue library books.eumaas wrote:Christ, you're the mirror image of Steve.101Walterton wrote:You win. You drew me in to what I knew would be a completely pointless fantasy ridden load of bollocks dressed up as a 'gun debate'.
Well, at least Steve cited studies.
No, you can't have a logical discussion full stop as you seem to be willfully avoiding such a thing and seem to either wholly misunderstand or purposefully misrepresent your opponent's posts.101Walterton wrote:Nice dig. I'll stick to living in the real world, I can't have a logical discussion with you whilst you claim to need a gun to protect you from the government. I dont know who or what you are trying to portray yourself as however you are far more likely to need it when the bailiffs come knocking for your overdue library books.eumaas wrote:Christ, you're the mirror image of Steve.101Walterton wrote:You win. You drew me in to what I knew would be a completely pointless fantasy ridden load of bollocks dressed up as a 'gun debate'.
Well, at least Steve cited studies.
I think your position is theoretically sound but utterly untenable in practice within the current Western context. Where were the militias when Cheney put the constitution through a shredder? When there were fucking teams of covert assassins whose alleged targets included American citizens reporting to the VP? When Bush set himself up as what political figures are increasingly describing as a dictator?<snip> People form resistance movements. Read about the French Resistance against the Nazis. I cited guerrilla warfare as an example of effective resistance against a larger enemy--try reading about Cuba, Vietnam, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq.
I'm skeptical that it actually works as a deterrent against government intrusion, just for the reasons you've listed. I believe that the state will grab for power at any opportunity, just as it's doing right now. The US government is more powerful now than it's ever been. Since 9/11 we've dropped into a bizarre world.Inder wrote:I think your position is theoretically sound but utterly untenable in practice within the current Western context. Where were the militias when Cheney put the constitution through a shredder? When there were fucking teams of covert assassins whose alleged targets included American citizens reporting to the VP? When Bush set himself up as what political figures are increasingly describing as a dictator?
I haven't gone to any of the links you've posted (just been skimming, tbh) but I'd be interested if you could name any specific incidents where private gun ownership did anything to prevent your government from doing whatever it wanted to.
It's certainly possible that the masses would capitulate to fascism. It's been a trend for the public to go along with the empire builders and centralists. No argument there. Bush eroded the hell out of our protections, and the Bush-Obama bipartisan partial nationalization scheme is part and parcel of the same erosion. The logic behind that sort of thing is inexorable.It's one thing to believe that you should have the right to own guns, but the whole "to protect us from the government" line of argument annoys me. We've become so deeply entrenched in the constructs that govern society that I honestly think that it doesn't matter whether you have guns or not. It just doesn't work like that anymore. Tanks and missiles, on the other hand, would be quite useful to a resistance movement.
Were you accessing my PM's last night, Big Brother? You cover a lot of what I mentioned last night privately. You also allude to what I described as the other slippery slope. That is, if banning access to assault rifles, for example, is the first step to banning all firearms, as the pro-gun side sometimes suggests, if accepting the premise that a person has the right to a gun under the principle of self-defense, why should it stop at guns? Shouldn't a person be able to own a bazooka, a flame thrower, plant landmines all over their property, equip their yard with rocket launchers, or armoured vehicles? If the principle is that more weapons leads to greater security or that a person has the right to take any steps to maintain their security, then there should be no limits. And, as you suggest at the start, while theoretically sound, in practice it's obviously ridiculous. And that's where the obsession with guns has gotten the US—a theoretically sound principle of self-defense, but in practice one that has only encouraged paranoia and violence. Theory and principle is fine, but people don't live in theory.Inder wrote:I think your position is theoretically sound but utterly untenable in practice within the current Western context. Where were the militias when Cheney put the constitution through a shredder? When there were fucking teams of covert assassins whose alleged targets included American citizens reporting to the VP? When Bush set himself up as what political figures are increasingly describing as a dictator?<snip> People form resistance movements. Read about the French Resistance against the Nazis. I cited guerrilla warfare as an example of effective resistance against a larger enemy--try reading about Cuba, Vietnam, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq.
I haven't gone to any of the links you've posted (just been skimming, tbh) but I'd be interested if you could name any specific incidents where private gun ownership did anything to prevent your government from doing whatever it wanted to.
It's one thing to believe that you should have the right to own guns, but the whole "to protect us from the government" line of argument annoys me. We've become so deeply entrenched in the constructs that govern society that I honestly think that it doesn't matter whether you have guns or not. It just doesn't work like that anymore. Tanks and missiles, on the other hand, would be quite useful to a resistance movement.
IMHO, of course.
BostonBeaneater wrote:I like guns. I rarely see guns in day to day life unless it is on a cop's belt. Cars, tobacco, and drunks kill a lot of people too but I'd be damned if the government tried to tell me I can't have them. It's an ugly world and bad stuff happens. Most of the bad stuff would never be heard about without the media commanding you to be outraged.
eumaas wrote:BostonBeaneater wrote:I like guns. I rarely see guns in day to day life unless it is on a cop's belt. Cars, tobacco, and drunks kill a lot of people too but I'd be damned if the government tried to tell me I can't have them. It's an ugly world and bad stuff happens. Most of the bad stuff would never be heard about without the media commanding you to be outraged.
More bad stuff seems to happen in the US when it comes to gun violence than in countries with tighter gun laws. It's one thing to acknowledge that a lot of awful stuff happens in the world, but another to facilitate it.BostonBeaneater wrote:I like guns. I rarely see guns in day to day life unless it is on a cop's belt. Cars, tobacco, and drunks kill a lot of people too but I'd be damned if the government tried to tell me I can't have them. It's an ugly world and bad stuff happens. Most of the bad stuff would never be heard about without the media commanding you to be outraged.