- Joined
- Apr 24, 2010
- Messages
- 9,640
- Reaction score
- 3,591
- Location
- Seoul/Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The days when a gun owner holding power is over.
The military and the police (the government), by your reckoning, don't hold power?
If this is true, you shouldn't make an exception for the police or the military.
First, I would like to notify that I have had very few experience with the gun control debate, so my knowledge in this field is very limited. Please note that I live in a society where guns are very restricted, so my experiences will vary much from those who may be reading this, whom I presume to be mostly Americans.
As I have never revealed my position before, my position is that guns should be banned except for the military and law and order personnel. That is the position my society is in, and I agree with it fullheartedly. I cannot understand the arguments about guns making a difference in somehow stalling a government. The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government. Also, there have been numerous cases where guns had no part in overthrowing a tyrannical government. In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal. Likewise I have observed democratic movements in numerous other locations such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and such. Even during the relatively recent Arab Spring, guns were rarely used.
I'm sure there are other statistics and arguments to refute mine, and I welcome them as I am a newbie in this area, yet I ask for politeness as a rule.
i've been researching for crime statistics between the US and SK, as well as other countries that bans or allows guns. I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.
You will never understand our culture and the freedom that owning firearms represents to us, don't try.
I meant an individual acting against the govt or even a group against the govt. Sorry that it needed clarification
I knew what you meant. My point is that you're artificially limiting your thinking.
Guns are a form of power. They always have been and always will be, no matter whose hands they are in. The government, with all the guns, has a monopoly on the ultimate form of power when they have all the guns. After all, the threat of death is what all power ultimately rests on.
Power belongs in the hands of the people, not exclusively at the authority of the government. That's the fundamental bedrock of a free society.
If you think it makes no difference and doesn't deter the government, ask the police how they feel about raiding a place they know is full of guns, versus a place they know isn't.
You will never understand how much right-wing arrogance seems ass-like to ordinary people
I was honestly trying to make a point, sorry if I offended you.
Interesting point. Yet I think that in realistic terms, your example doesn't hold up. The govt could easily just demolish the place with explosives.
My argument rests on the fact that the modern arsenal goats came to possess essentially makes guns meaningless
Ah, excuse my harshness.
You do have a point. Cultures do have a strong part, and our history proving that freedom is not always given in the form of guns but protest, ideals, and the will of the peoplecertainlyy influences us.
Again, my apologies
Interesting point. Yet I think that in realistic terms, your example doesn't hold up. The govt could easily just demolish the place with explosives. My argument rests on the fact that the modern arsenal goats came to possess essentially makes guns meaningless
No it doesn't. You don't necessarily have to defeat a government militarily to win. Insurgencies and rebellions are not about military victory. They are about making the cost of military victory for the other side sufficiently high that a political accommodation becomes possible.
First, I would like to notify that I have had very few experience with the gun control debate, so my knowledge in this field is very limited. Please note that I live in a society where guns are very restricted, so my experiences will vary much from those who may be reading this, whom I presume to be mostly Americans.
As I have never revealed my position before, my position is that guns should be banned except for the military and law and order personnel. That is the position my society is in, and I agree with it fullheartedly. I cannot understand the arguments about guns making a difference in somehow stalling a government. The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government. Also, there have been numerous cases where guns had no part in overthrowing a tyrannical government. In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal. Likewise I have observed democratic movements in numerous other locations such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and such. Even during the relatively recent Arab Spring, guns were rarely used.
I'm sure there are other statistics and arguments to refute mine, and I welcome them as I am a newbie in this area, yet I ask for politeness as a rule.
i've been researching for crime statistics between the US and SK, as well as other countries that bans or allows guns. I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.
The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government.
I meant an individual acting against the govt or even a group against the govt. Sorry that it needed clarification
lets say a congressman proposes a law that make owning a gun a life sentence
it barely passes
lots of people have their lives ruined
what should patriots do
fight the army?
or kill those who voted for the law
problem solved
Turtle, have you ever read John Ross' novel, Unintended Consequences?
Not at all.
First let me compliment you on your English. I was born and raised in the US and you just may have a better mastery of English then I do.First, I would like to notify that I have had very few experience with the gun control debate, so my knowledge in this field is very limited. Please note that I live in a society where guns are very restricted, so my experiences will vary much from those who may be reading this, whom I presume to be mostly Americans.
As I have never revealed my position before, my position is that guns should be banned except for the military and law and order personnel. That is the position my society is in, and I agree with it fullheartedly. I cannot understand the arguments about guns making a difference in somehow stalling a government. The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government. Also, there have been numerous cases where guns had no part in overthrowing a tyrannical government. In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal. Likewise I have observed democratic movements in numerous other locations such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and such. Even during the relatively recent Arab Spring, guns were rarely used.
I'm sure there are other statistics and arguments to refute mine, and I welcome them as I am a newbie in this area, yet I ask for politeness as a rule.
i've been researching for crime statistics between the US and SK, as well as other countries that bans or allows guns. I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.
The gun is civilization
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
.....
Our militias were created with the intent that we would never have a standing Army. We're not supposed to have a standing Army today, but we do, and Armys tend to do exactly what they're trained to do, which is why America is waging war allover the globe.I meant an individual acting against the govt or even a group against the govt. Sorry that it needed clarification
First, I would like to notify that I have had very few experience with the gun control debate, so my knowledge in this field is very limited. Please note that I live in a society where guns are very restricted, so my experiences will vary much from those who may be reading this, whom I presume to be mostly Americans.
As I have never revealed my position before, my position is that guns should be banned except for the military and law and order personnel. That is the position my society is in, and I agree with it fullheartedly. I cannot understand the arguments about guns making a difference in somehow stalling a government. The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government. Also, there have been numerous cases where guns had no part in overthrowing a tyrannical government. In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal. Likewise I have observed democratic movements in numerous other locations such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and such. Even during the relatively recent Arab Spring, guns were rarely used.
I'm sure there are other statistics and arguments to refute mine, and I welcome them as I am a newbie in this area, yet I ask for politeness as a rule.
i've been researching for crime statistics between the US and SK, as well as other countries that bans or allows guns. I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.
To understand you have to have the appropriate context. NO ONE is advocating the overthrow of or a battle against 'the government'. We still elect our representatives, even if we as a nation do a piss poor job of being selective with who we send. The Constitution was never meant to provide a means of rebellion against an elected body. It IS meant to preserve the Constitution and freedoms we have. I ASSURE you...if we were to ever reach a point where the government and Constitution were abandoned, 120 million gun owners would make an oppressive force to contend with, even where we are talking rifles vs military might. You also have to extend the scenario out completely. IF there were a tyrannical force that attempted to seize control of the country, not only would they have to contend with the 'militia' but also with the state Guard and Reserve components. We as a people value our freedom (even where some would readily sacrifice it).I meant an individual acting against the govt or even a group against the govt. Sorry that it needed clarification
I would think that you as a citizen living in a country next to one that is still technically at war with yours, you would want to be armed. Because one of these days the DPRK isn't just going to be throwing a tantrum and actually resume the war.Or the US and ROK is going to get sick of the DPRK's **** and resume the war.First, I would like to notify that I have had very few experience with the gun control debate, so my knowledge in this field is very limited. Please note that I live in a society where guns are very restricted, so my experiences will vary much from those who may be reading this, whom I presume to be mostly Americans.
As I have never revealed my position before, my position is that guns should be banned except for the military and law and order personnel. That is the position my society is in, and I agree with it fullheartedly. I cannot understand the arguments about guns making a difference in somehow stalling a government. The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government. Also, there have been numerous cases where guns had no part in overthrowing a tyrannical government. In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal. Likewise I have observed democratic movements in numerous other locations such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and such. Even during the relatively recent Arab Spring, guns were rarely used.
I'm sure there are other statistics and arguments to refute mine, and I welcome them as I am a newbie in this area, yet I ask for politeness as a rule.
i've been researching for crime statistics between the US and SK, as well as other countries that bans or allows guns. I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.
First, I would like to notify that I have had very few experience with the gun control debate, so my knowledge in this field is very limited. Please note that I live in a society where guns are very restricted, so my experiences will vary much from those who may be reading this, whom I presume to be mostly Americans.
As I have never revealed my position before, my position is that guns should be banned except for the military and law and order personnel. That is the position my society is in, and I agree with it fullheartedly. I cannot understand the arguments about guns making a difference in somehow stalling a government. The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government. Also, there have been numerous cases where guns had no part in overthrowing a tyrannical government. In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal. Likewise I have observed democratic movements in numerous other locations such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and such. Even during the relatively recent Arab Spring, guns were rarely used.
I'm sure there are other statistics and arguments to refute mine, and I welcome them as I am a newbie in this area, yet I ask for politeness as a rule.
i've been researching for crime statistics between the US and SK, as well as other countries that bans or allows guns. I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?