If you outlaw guns, then only.... - Page 8

Ibby · 10-10-2006, 11:22 PM

Wait, I forgot NeoMcCarthyist, bossy, mean-spirited, selfish, rude, inconsiderate, egomaniacal, snobbish, heartless... meh, I could go on for a while yet.

Undertoad · 10-11-2006, 08:51 AM

It *is* the culture that keeps us free. So, by the time you feel the need to be armed, being armed won't protect you. When the culture slips you are doomed.

An armed society may well be the most impolite society you can possibly imagine.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard various L types say it was getting close to time to fight the system and taking up a gun is step one. Yes, there is a potential problem if you have a government armed and a population not armed. But as long as government is representational, there is a bigger problem with citizens armed and demanding to install the type of government THEY feel is best.

Griff · 10-11-2006, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

When the culture slips you are doomed.

Who is you white man?

I'm conservative enough to want to maintain the culture we have. My anarchist streak gives me an intellectual urge to know, what would happen if?

xoxoxoBruce · 10-11-2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff

Who is you white man?

I'm conservative enough to want to maintain the culture we have. My anarchist streak gives me an intellectual urge to know, what would happen if?

What would happen if? Is that the national scale of, "hold my beer and watch this"?

mrnoodle · 10-11-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

But as long as government is representational, there is a bigger problem with citizens armed and demanding to install the type of government THEY feel is best.

Uppity citizens

10-12-2006, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad
But as long as government is representational, there is a bigger problem with citizens armed and demanding to install the type of government THEY feel is best.

Those citizens would have to deploy some pretty heavy armament before that notion became a serious consideration. The government generally isn't worried about a citizenry with small arms overthrowing it. The city isn't worried about even it's armed police force overthrowing it; because, it can go to the State for National Guard support. The State isn't worried about it's armed National Guard overthrowing it; because, it can go to the Federal Government for Armed Forces support. The Federal Government isn't worried about the Armed Forces overthrowing it; because, there is a citizenry with small arms that could deny a total victory to the Armed Forces as it's experiencing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Subversive citizens would need to use much more force to install a different government than the general population would need to prevent the government, if the government slips, from installing all different citizens.

Additionally, subversive citizens can pose as much danger (via domestic terrorism) to non-government personnel as to government personnel. Would you take away the non-subversive general population's ability to defend themselves with small arms? The subversives are going to acquire small arms whether they can be legally owned or not. The government can't even keep illegal drugs or illegal aliens out of this country let alone firearms.

Beestie · 10-12-2006, 07:46 AM

Government does not deserve nor is it entitled to exist and operate with the comfort that the threat or possibility of revolution is pre-foreclosed. The point at which revolution is no longer possible is the moment at which government transitions from serving the people to ruling the people.

I want a gun for the simple reason that they don't want me to have one. Making government feel safer is not my job - making me feel safer is their job and I don't feel safer when they ask me to lay down my weapon while pointing theirs at my forehead.

While I respect that opinions differ, it still surprises me that people are willing to give up a right. And not just any right but the right to defend one's self. Ban guns all you want. Put me down for civil disobedience. And I'm past the point of parsing the 2nd Amendment. If the government doesn't care what it says then hey, neither do I.

Spexxvet · 10-12-2006, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie

...While I respect that opinions differ, it still surprises me that people are willing to give up a right.

Why does it surprise you? What percentage of citizens with the right to vote abdicate that right every election?

10-12-2006, 05:08 PM

And harm millions with that decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

Those citizens would have to deploy some pretty heavy armament before that notion became a serious consideration. The government generally isn't worried about a citizenry with small arms overthrowing it. The city isn't worried about even it's armed police force overthrowing it; because, it can go to the State for National Guard support. The State isn't worried about it's armed National Guard overthrowing it; because, it can go to the Federal Government for Armed Forces support. The Federal Government isn't worried about the Armed Forces overthrowing it; because, there is a citizenry with small arms that could deny a total victory to the Armed Forces as it's experiencing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Subversive citizens would need to use much more force to install a different government than the general population would need to prevent the government, if the government slips, from installing all different citizens.

Additionally, subversive citizens can pose as much danger (via domestic terrorism) to non-government personnel as to government personnel. Would you take away the non-subversive general population's ability to defend themselves with small arms? The subversives are going to acquire small arms whether they can be legally owned or not. The government can't even keep illegal drugs or illegal aliens out of this country let alone firearms.

WTF are you talking about? The government put the drugs on the street and hires the illegal aliens.

mrnoodle · 10-12-2006, 05:33 PM

The question is not whether or not it's logistically possible to overthrow a government with small arms, whether or not you are able to always avoid being victimized if you are armed, or whether the physical removal of all guns will somehow make us safer.

We are human beings, and as such we come out of the chute with two (among other) inborn traits: we're prone to violence, and we have the right to defend ourselves from attack. It's OEM. Society, upbringing, and circumstance exacerbates the violence, but that only reinforces the importance of our right to self-defence.

The Constitution reaffirms that right, but it does not grant it. What it amounts to is this: the government can't eliminate violence, so it has no right to deny us any means of defense we can conjure up, as long as exercising that defense doesn't harm innocents.

I didn't mean to spell defense with a C, but I think it makes me look Euro, and therefore liberals should automatically believe me.

10-12-2006, 05:26 PM

Many of you really don't look at things from other's perspectives, gays in fear of being bashed, those who carry large sums of cash for their work or just personal lifestyle, the disabled who are targeted for violence (yes we are) and cannot fight back, single women in areas of high crime.
& there has not been a non-lethal form of self defense that can drop a 300 lb man on steroids/drug or both like a .45 hollow-point can. Spray or electricity just pisses him off.
Until they invent it, Guns... and that is it.

10-12-2006, 05:36 PM

I can make a large bomb in a half a day from things you can get the day before, logistically you can get the info you need for a decent strategic strike in less than a week.

Most military bases have isolated water sources.

Who needs guns?

Again...

“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.”
-- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).

Hippikos · 10-18-2006, 10:48 AM

Quote:

The anti-Republicans and anti-patriots have raised loud and unbecoming objections to EVERY SINGLE TACTIC AND STRATEGY THAT HAS HAD ANY LIKELIHOOD OF WINNING THE WAR FOR US and I am sick unto projective vomiting of it. Please consider the nature of our enemies.

UG still believes Bush went to war for patriotic reasons. God bless him.

Flint · 10-18-2006, 01:13 PM

Despite all these freedom-hating objections, the War For Terror has gone smashingly...

Urbane Guerrilla · 10-19-2006, 09:10 PM

Spexx, darling... it's always good to replace a dictatorship with a democracy, and that very seldom happens by election, dictatorships being what they are. That seems to this democracy-lover to be quite a good and sufficient reason.

This has been understood in Christendom since the concept of 'just war' was floated in the fourth century by St. Augustine. And you were -- where? I perceive some lacunae in your education.

So, no: in this case, being anti-Republican is in no wise being patriotic, and you cannot show it so. Come on, you don't love democracy enough to want it to spread even into those places which most lack it? They'd benefit most from getting it, you know.

10-10-2006, 11:22 PM	#1
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	Wait, I forgot NeoMcCarthyist, bossy, mean-spirited, selfish, rude, inconsiderate, egomaniacal, snobbish, heartless... meh, I could go on for a while yet. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

10-12-2006, 07:46 AM	#7
Beestie -◊\|≡·∙■·∙≡\|◊- Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Parts unknown. Posts: 4,081	Government does not deserve nor is it entitled to exist and operate with the comfort that the threat or possibility of revolution is pre-foreclosed. The point at which revolution is no longer possible is the moment at which government transitions from serving the people to ruling the people. I want a gun for the simple reason that they don't want me to have one. Making government feel safer is not my job - making me feel safer is their job and I don't feel safer when they ask me to lay down my weapon while pointing theirs at my forehead. While I respect that opinions differ, it still surprises me that people are willing to give up a right. And not just any right but the right to defend one's self. Ban guns all you want. Put me down for civil disobedience. And I'm past the point of parsing the 2nd Amendment. If the government doesn't care what it says then hey, neither do I. __________________ ♠ ♥ ♣ ♦

10-12-2006, 05:33 PM	#10
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	The question is not whether or not it's logistically possible to overthrow a government with small arms, whether or not you are able to always avoid being victimized if you are armed, or whether the physical removal of all guns will somehow make us safer. We are human beings, and as such we come out of the chute with two (among other) inborn traits: we're prone to violence, and we have the right to defend ourselves from attack. It's OEM. Society, upbringing, and circumstance exacerbates the violence, but that only reinforces the importance of our right to self-defence. The Constitution reaffirms that right, but it does not grant it. What it amounts to is this: the government can't eliminate violence, so it has no right to deny us any means of defense we can conjure up, as long as exercising that defense doesn't harm innocents. I didn't mean to spell defense with a C, but I think it makes me look Euro, and therefore liberals should automatically believe me. __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh

10-18-2006, 01:13 PM	#14
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Despite all these freedom-hating objections, the War For Terror has gone smashingly... __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

10-19-2006, 09:10 PM	#15
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	Spexx, darling... it's always good to replace a dictatorship with a democracy, and that very seldom happens by election, dictatorships being what they are. That seems to this democracy-lover to be quite a good and sufficient reason. This has been understood in Christendom since the concept of 'just war' was floated in the fourth century by St. Augustine. And you were -- where? I perceive some lacunae in your education. So, no: in this case, being anti-Republican is in no wise being patriotic, and you cannot show it so. Come on, you don't love democracy enough to want it to spread even into those places which most lack it? They'd benefit most from getting it, you know. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

10-11-2006, 08:51 AM	#2
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It is the culture that keeps us free. So, by the time you feel the need to be armed, being armed won't protect you. When the culture slips you are doomed. An armed society may well be the most impolite society you can possibly imagine. I can't tell you how many times I have heard various L types say it was getting close to time to fight the system and taking up a gun is step one. Yes, there is a potential problem if you have a government armed and a population not armed. But as long as government is representational, there is a bigger problem with citizens armed and demanding to install the type of government THEY feel is best.

10-12-2006, 05:26 PM	#11
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	Many of you really don't look at things from other's perspectives, gays in fear of being bashed, those who carry large sums of cash for their work or just personal lifestyle, the disabled who are targeted for violence (yes we are) and cannot fight back, single women in areas of high crime. & there has not been a non-lethal form of self defense that can drop a 300 lb man on steroids/drug or both like a .45 hollow-point can. Spray or electricity just pisses him off. Until they invent it, Guns... and that is it.

10-12-2006, 05:36 PM	#12
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	I can make a large bomb in a half a day from things you can get the day before, logistically you can get the info you need for a decent strategic strike in less than a week. Most military bases have isolated water sources. Who needs guns? Again... “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.” -- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)