Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Guns are needed for any revolution that isn't a velvet revolution, and those almost never happen.

So you say this even though I just said an example that contradicts this idea pretty thoroughly?

Tunisia is the exception, not the rule. Which we can see with what is going on in Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Yemen. Peaceful revolutions are great and usually turn out better than violent ones, but they aren't how power most often shifts.

[blackmagechill]

Can you believe all of this happened because some guy lit himself on fire? I think that's probably why Tunisia's went over so quickly. If someone is willing to kill himself in one of the worst ways possible, then maybe you kind of start to realize that you're doing some really messed up stuff.

[SalmonGod]

Self-immolation isn't actually all that uncommon as a form of political protest.  I think Thích Quảng Đức and Mohamed Bouazizi are the only individuals to have really made a major impact with their sacrifices.  The many dozens of others who have tried it are just never picked up by the media and forgotten.

[Sheb]

Actually, Egypt only used guns to shoot at protesters. Another non-violent one.

And Yemen is a perfect exemple of what can go wrong if there are too many guns.

[G-Flex]

Actually, Egypt only used guns to shoot at protesters. Another non-violent one.

Probably not a good example, since they had the support of the military.

[MonkeyHead]

Guns are (in general) designed to kill. Killing (in general) is a crime, one which we hold particularly serious. Controlling firearms clearly reduces the rate of gun crime - Europe is the example. I would also assume that it reduces the rate of overall violent crimes. Surley any minor restrictions on freedom caused by preventing the general populace increasing the prevalece of a tool designed to kill is outweighed by the gains in personal freedoms gained by reducing the probability of being shot by someone. Of course, serious criminals will still obtain firearms, but serious criminals must make up the minority of users anyway by thier very defined nature.

I understand that it is written into the law of the USA that people have the right to carry guns. Well, over time we have all had some laws that others can consider to be stupid or absurd. Slavery. The right for the London Mayor to drive his livestock over Tower Bridge. Heck, it used to be legal for someone of my nationality to be murdured in Hereford provided the killer used a longbow. The law is not a fixed and unchangeable thing. It should change for the better. IMHO the reason it doesnt is that this bit of "old" US law has evolved into some kind of personal characteristic (NRA and all that), and right wing conservative lobbying probably doesnt help here.

This next section might not be for everyone.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

My opinions are heavily influenced by the fact that an Aunt of mine was shot in the head from point blank range by an intruder while he was robbing her home. He had no need to kill her - it was irrelevant in the context of the robbery. He chose not to kill her husband, and his statement was quite harrowing. 2 men broke in through the back door into thier kitchen in the middle of the night, unarmed and under the assumption that the house was empty (it was a house on thier ranch in South Africa, empthy for half the year and they had got thier dates slightly wrong. They helped themselves to some kitchen knives and used the threat of violence to assure the compliance of my relatives. They were tied up with riding gear while they ransacked the house. They found a safe (very old one at that) and at knifepoint forced my Aunt to tell them the combination. Amongst some valuables it contained a handgun and small amount of ammo which my Aunts husband kept for "home protection". He was a white South African and worried about possible attacks on thier home. It was this gun that was used in the shooting. A smash and grab against the local rich land owners turned into a racially motivated murder due to the presence of a firearm. No-one was ever charged or taken to trial over the crime, and now 8 years later I doubt they ever will. I am not clued up on the differences between the laws in South Africa and the USA regarding the storage of weapons, but if that gun had not been there this sorry mess would never have occured. There is the very real possibility that this gun has gone on to be used in other crimes.

RIght. I am out for a while to make some effort to chill out until the dust from the gun debate settles. As those of you that have read the above might understand, I could do without hearing justifications as for why people need a tool designed for killing.

[G-Flex]

I understand that it is written into the law of the USA that people have the right to carry guns. Well, over time we have all had some laws that others can consider to be stupid or absurd.

One big problem here, aside from that, is that the second amendment is written using rather strange grammar. Granted, the SCOTUS has upheld that it refers to an individual right to bear arms unconnected to membership in any sort of militia.

Really, its (original) purpose is now fairly irrelevant, in my opinion. There simply isn't any way that average people, even if they are well-trained, could fend off any sort of governmental action. That just seems absurd to me. The government didn't have satellite networks, airborne drones, bunker busters, bomber planes, etc. a few hundred years ago. That purpose of firearm ownership just isn't as relevant anymore.

[Sheb]

Well, look at Vietnam, Afghanistan or just about anywhere to see the results of guerilla actions using small arms.

[Leafsnail]

Heck, it used to be legal for someone of my nationality to be murdured in Hereford provided the killer used a longbow.

I think that's still technically legal, although we have a doctrine of "implied repeal" here.  In other words centuries of laws about homicide would probably (hopefully) override that one archaic law, although it would make a good episode of Luther or something.

Really, its (original) purpose is now fairly irrelevant, in my opinion. There simply isn't any way that average people, even if they are well-trained, could fend off any sort of governmental action. That just seems absurd to me. The government didn't have satellite networks, airborne drones, bunker busters, bomber planes, etc. a few hundred years ago. That purpose of firearm ownership just isn't as relevant anymore.

The other problem I see is that it's easier for rich people to obtain guns, and to hire people to use guns.  It seems fundamentally undemocratic to me, and if anything could help enforce the status quo against a popular uprising.

[Deadmeat1471]

Well, look at Vietnam, Afghanistan or just about anywhere to see the results of guerilla actions using small arms.

Extremely inaccurate.

They didn't have just small arms, the arms were extremely prevelant, the training was good from NVA advisors. The weapons were in fact machineguns and military rifles and mortars and AA guns, not a civilian rifle/hand gun. Oh and tanks eventually.
Vietnam also could not control gun flows, as in the America weapons were prevelant.

The less equipped focused on terrorists acts only.

*All of this applies similarily for Afghanistan too.


The only way a citizen of the USA could resist the government by arms would be terrorism, they wouldnt stand a chance against a mechanised infantry division, not a chance in hell. So the argument that americans keep weapons to overthrow tyranny in the government is disingenuous. Either the USA citizens expect to use terrorist acts to win, or they fight a military they could never defeat.
For it to be the case of defeating the government if necessary civilians would need to be allowed to own Bradley APC's and military small arms, which they do not and will not have.

This makes the constitution and the 'right to arms' absolutely wrong, counter productive and absolutely pointless. It's only influence is to make the USA one of the highest gun crime rich nations in the world, congrats.

Anyone who thinks his colt .45 is a weapon to overthrow the government, are morons.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Actually, Egypt only used guns to shoot at protesters. Another non-violent one.

Probably not a good example, since they had the support of the military.

And Egypt isn't really over, either. The populace is starting to become unhappy with their new military junta government.

[Nadaka]

There is no distinction between civilian and military arms. The right to bear arms should theoretically extend to artillery, surface to air missiles and tanks.

[Loud Whispers]

There is no distinction between civilian and military arms. The right to bear arms should theoretically extend to artillery, surface to air missiles and tanks.

And WMD's. Why not.

*Nothing can go wrong*

[Flying Dice]

There is no distinction between civilian and military arms. The right to bear arms should theoretically extend to artillery, surface to air missiles and tanks.

And WMD's. Why not.

*Nothing can go wrong*

A chemical weapons plant in every household!

[JoshuaFH]

There is no distinction between civilian and military arms. The right to bear arms should theoretically extend to artillery, surface to air missiles and tanks.

And WMD's. Why not.

*Nothing can go wrong*

A chemical weapons plant in every household!

I'll get to work on my solar death ray.