Quote :

"I think you'll find throughout history that tyranny is held via local police and secret police entities, not militaries. Gun rights in America absolutely provide a strong deterrent against this."

How?

[Edited on February 16, 2018 at 4:13 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2018 4:12:22 PM

The first part of that statement is correct. The second part absolutely is not

2/16/2018 4:15:55 PM

Yea... I'm going to disagree with that. The current state of our police (local, state, and certainly federal) armament would say that personal firearms are pretty much zero deterrent. The ATF's job is to make sure that the average person can't build up enough firepower to pose a threat to law enforcement.

2/16/2018 4:16:22 PM

The only way you can possibly arrive at that conclusion is if you completely strip away citizenship from the outrageous number of minorities and disenfranchised are routinely incarcerated and outright murdered by state actors such as the police

2/16/2018 4:18:02 PM

Tyranny may be held by police, but it's enabled by larger government entities. Definitely a mix of the two.

2/16/2018 4:20:21 PM

Quote :

" idk man, the "arm the left" movement is growing, and it's kinda reductionist to say anyone who owns guns is actually a tyranny-enabling hypocrite"

Sure, but just observe how the police treat right wingers (Bundy ranch, neo nazi marches, etc) vs how they treat BLM, DAPL, Occupy, and other leftists movements. And those weren't armed. The Black Panthers were, and the Chicago PD, backed by the FBI murdered leaders like Fred Hampton in his sleep

The state will absolutely meet the left with lethal force because the state fights to protect the interests of capital. They don't meet the right with the same level of hostility because the right gun owners politics interests align conveniently with the interests of capital (mainly the interest of establishing and maintaining a permanent underclass with little to no political power).

[Edited on February 16, 2018 at 4:29 PM. Reason : ]

2/16/2018 4:22:01 PM

I agree with you, I just don't think it's productive to paint all gun owners as complicit.

2/16/2018 4:28:17 PM

Sorry, I was disagreeing with "Gun rights in America absolutely provide a strong deterrent against [police/military] tyranny".

I wasn't disagreeing with JHC's post.

2/16/2018 4:29:48 PM

Quote :

"Yea... I'm going to disagree with that. The current state of our police (local, state, and certainly federal) armament would say that personal firearms are pretty much zero deterrent. The ATF's job is to make sure that the average person can't build up enough firepower to pose a threat to law enforcement"

Not sure how you're getting to this. I personally know people with flat out arsenals as private citizens. Legally owned. I'm not talking about tyranny from the standpoint of cops beating suspects or planting evidence. I am talking about a dictatorial attempt to establish autocracy via police. In the event of that, gun rights absolutely help to defend against that.

Deterrent may have been the wrong word for me to use.

[Edited on February 16, 2018 at 4:30 PM. Reason : a]

2/16/2018 4:29:55 PM

I'm mostly talking about the "muh liberties" gun crowd. We can all see through their phony civil libertarian arguments. We all know the general profile of the people they are "protecting their families and freedoms" from.

2/16/2018 4:31:52 PM

Quote :

"I am talking about a dictatorial attempt to establish autocracy via police. In the event of that, gun rights absolutely help to defend against that."

I'm still confused how rifles and handguns would defend you in this case. The side controlling the military and intelligence organizations will win.

2/16/2018 4:33:00 PM

Police. Not military. For starters.

Secondly, insurgent warfare is deadly effective against large, more powerful entities.

2/16/2018 4:33:57 PM

Quote :

"The state will absolutely meet the left with lethal force because the state fights to protect the interests of capital. They don't meet the right with the same level of hostility because the right gun owners politics interests align conveniently with the interests of capital (mainly the interest of establishing and maintaining a permanent underclass with little to no political power)."

This is an interesting thought. I think you're incorrectly substituting "gun owners" for "rich white folks." There have also been multiple "right" organizations that were met with force, but their interests certainly didn't align with those of the state.

2/16/2018 4:34:50 PM

^^
What is the military doing while we're at war with the police...?

[Edited on February 16, 2018 at 4:35 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2018 4:35:10 PM

depends. some will side with the insurgents. some will side with govt.

2/16/2018 4:38:52 PM

Quote :

"I think you'll find throughout history that tyranny is held via local police and secret police entities, not militaries."

Quote :

"I'm not talking about tyranny from the standpoint of cops beating suspects or planting evidence. I am talking about a dictatorial attempt to establish autocracy via police. I"

You just went from stating, (accurately) that tyranny is most often expressed through an omnipotent police force that subjugates citizens regardless of private gun ownership to stating that tyranny is actually authoritarianism that can be prevented with gun ownership. You're using two competing definitions of the term to arrive at a contradictory conclusion.

How can private gun ownership prevent full blown tyranny when it can't even prevent the soft tyranny of everyday policing?

[Edited on February 16, 2018 at 4:44 PM. Reason : ]

2/16/2018 4:40:06 PM

Quote :

"Not sure how you're getting to this. I personally know people with flat out arsenals as private citizens. Legally owned. I'm not talking about tyranny from the standpoint of cops beating suspects or planting evidence. I am talking about a dictatorial attempt to establish autocracy via police. In the event of that, gun rights absolutely help to defend against that."

I'm getting there with sheer numbers. How many people do you know with "flat out arsenals"? Maybe 10.. on the high end? Do you have any idea how much firepower the National Guard can bring to bare in a week? (I know I'm sort of blurring the lines there of military and police, but the NG is a state run entity, and at the disposal of the Governor... even though its armed and trained by the DoD)

If the state wants to establish martial law I don't think there is realistically enough guns to form a well armed militia to stop that tyranny.

Quote :

"Secondly, insurgent warfare is deadly effective against large, more powerful entities."

Yea... I've read David Kilcullen too, I'm maintaining my Mass argument.

2/16/2018 4:47:38 PM

there's a lot of people in here that assume the national guard is willing to break bad with air strikes and artillery fire on their own citizens.

2/16/2018 5:05:58 PM

they've fired on citizens before

2/16/2018 5:20:28 PM

yeah but eleusis doesn't count dirty hippies as humans

2/16/2018 6:02:18 PM

plenty of gun owners aren't complicit in or OK with the trampling of other rights.

Also, a whole shitload of armed citizens would of course have no chance of "winning" against the U.S. military and security apparatus. That's not the point in such a hypothetical; they wouldn't need to.

2/16/2018 7:06:23 PM

Could you expand on that last comment? You seem to be implying that the mere threat of an armed populace is what keeps a would be tyrannical government honest.

But that threat is worthless if not acted on during ACTUAL encroachments of freedom's from a growing state apparatus.

1st Amendment issues have been trampled on, OVER and OVER again, and the pro-gun crowd sits idly by. Journalists are prosecuted and pressured by the government to reveal sources, which fundamentally undermines the usefulness of a free and fair press.

4th Amendment rights are violated daily by police who use (now defunct but still used) "stop and frisk" and "civil forfeiture" and similar types of laws to deprive citizens (mostly those who are of color and/or low income) from their right against unreasonable search and seizure.

5th and 6th Amendment rights are denied to poor people all the time, who are denied bond or even denied a fair trial because they are pressured to take plea deals for non-violent crimes.

8th Amendment rights are denied to people all the time for cruel and unusual punishment. You can't have 5% of the world's population and simultaneously have 25% of the world's imprisoned population. And you can't have a ridiculous amount of citizens shot and killed dead by police without a trial and say with a straight face that they were given due process.

So, really, the only right that is defended and protected by the 2nd Amendment is the 2nd Amendment itself. And that's it. That's the only one. And yet you have ardent defenders of the 2nd Amendment claiming that the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment, while viciously attacking Colin fucking Kaepernick for taking a goddamn knee or going to Hurricane disaster areas to "shoot looters," or who reflexively enter every gun debate by saying, "buuuttt whhhadddaabbout Chicago?!?!?!"

And many, in this very thread, would say that they are for "reasonable gun control" and keeping guns "out of the wrong hands" which plainly amounts to "no guns for blacks or radicals," who, coincidentally are the ones who are most often targeted by repressive forms of governmental control.

Sorry, but the "guns=liberty" crowd needs to be identified for what they are. They don't want guns to protect from tyrannical governments, they want guns to keep and maintain their marginal societal privilege from the underclass. And in adopting this fear of the scary minority, they unwittingly do the counter-revolutionary bidding of their bosses.

2/16/2018 9:37:06 PM

Quote :

"Could you expand on that last comment? You seem to be implying that the mere threat of an armed populace is what keeps a would be tyrannical government honest"

What he is saying here is you don't have to win, you just have to not lose. A stalemate is a win for the population that is simply seeking to avoid extermination.

Duke, apologies if I misrepresented what you said.

2/16/2018 9:56:26 PM

Quote :

"The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants."

2/16/2018 9:57:11 PM

^^^I understand your point, but I feel like you've created a group of people in your head who love guns and hate minorities. Yes those people do exist, but you're applying attributes to a HUGE group of people with no evidence except how you feel.
Like Duke said, there are plenty of right wingers who will argue that all of those encroachments you've mentioned are just as bad as encroachments on the 2nd amendment.

You've also set up a straw man, saying that all of these other amendments should be defended, and then knocked it down saying that pro gun folks don't defend THOSE amendments.

[Edited on February 16, 2018 at 10:07 PM. Reason : people got in before me.]

2/16/2018 10:04:43 PM

If they don't defend those other rights, then they fundamentally don't believe in their own axiom. If their entire argument hinges on this belief, and they don't act on those beliefs, then their beliefs carry no weight and they sold be dismissed out of hand for being insincere


To previous point, sure. I'm sure there is a an array of political beliefs in the adamant 2A "muh liberties crowd." But I highly doubt it's a vast cornucopia of political thought. Having an affinity for use of lethal force to project power predisposes one to authoritarian thinking.

2/16/2018 10:43:36 PM

ok let me fix it.

You'd rather see thousands of people die than give up your ability to possibly put up an effective resistance to a hypothetical major encroachment on your civil liberties.

Lets break down the tradeoff here and do some real risk assessment. What do you put the probability of actually using your guns to quell government overreach at? because i put the probability of thousands being murdered by the very guns you want for protection at 100%.

[Edited on February 16, 2018 at 10:45 PM. Reason : i don't see how any outcome without guns could be worse than what we have now]

2/16/2018 10:43:58 PM

some folks calls it a trolley problem i calls it a false dichotomy

mmm hmmm

2/16/2018 11:10:41 PM

^^^ again, you've made up a group of people in your head and assigned attributes to them to make your point. You have NO IDEA what beliefs real people act on. But you've painted some face on people with which you have a fundamental disagreement.

Quote :

"Having an affinity for use of lethal force to project power predisposes one to authoritarian thinking."

I haven't read any argument here on either side that would show anyone other than the government has a real AFFINITY for POWER PROJECTION. Most people are arguing for defense which is fundamentally different. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your verbiage. Furthermore, I'm just not sure that statement is true. I would think having a love or passion for power projection would make one significantly less likely to submit to authority. Since these people have a need to expand their own authority wouldn't that lead to disorganization rather than conspiracy to keep others down?

2/16/2018 11:40:23 PM

Most people are not arguing for defense. They are making (or are attempting to make) a principled argument based on the political belief of resisting tyranny. I'm disposing of that myth because I believe that they actually only like guns because they like guns. This is a far cry from the tired argument of "defense from tyranny" argument that is trotted out after every mass shooting in this country. Protecting the Second Amendment because "defense of the second amendment is crucial to the defense of all the other amendments" is an argument that is brought out by enthusiasts EVERY. FUCKING. TIME. Just read this thread from the beginning. Yet, there are no meaningful movements being made by "armed militias" to push back on state abuses of power that are currently happening, and continue to happen in this country:

Massive tax handouts that transfer wealth from the poor to the rich? Nothing.

Mass incarceration of minorities and the poor? Nothing.

Systems of surveillance that deny people from their right to privacy? Nothing.

The actual, literal murder of unarmed citizens from a militarized police force? Nothing.

Multiple elections where the winning candidate doesn't win a majority of the votes? Nothing.

Handouts to banks that devastate local economies and workers? Nothing.

Why is that? Because that's not the real reason why gun enthusiasts like guns. The only real desire that animates their behavior, as you said, is "defense," which is largely revolved around the desire to protect members of their tribe (usually from the scary "other."). And that's where I interjected my assertion that gun owners only wish to maintain their access to scarce resources and marginal political and societal privilege by creating and maintaining a criminal underclass that is subjugated to the overreach of an omnipotent police force and vast systems of oppression. The "tyranny" that gun enthusiasts are so deathly afraid of is ALREADY VISITING these communities (usually communities of color, almost always communities of poverty). And yet gun owners do nothing. They demonstrate ZERO solidarity with these people. Because they don't actually give a shit so long as those systems of oppression do not visit their protected enclaves. They ALREADY SUBMIT to an abusive government, they just don't care so long as it doesn't happen to them personally.

School children are shot and murdered at an alarming rate?

"Well, that is severely unfortunate and I don't condone the act, but I'd prefer a little bit of uncertainty to maximum liberty because I am very smart and I believe that access to weaponry keeps the citizenry safe from a tyrannical government." - Principled Gun Owner

Civil rights activists protest for the systematic murder of unarmed citizens of color from an unnacountable police force?

"Duurrrrrrr...........Blue Lives Matter!....duurrrrr-hurrr" - Same Fucking Guy






[Edited on February 17, 2018 at 12:28 AM. Reason : ]

2/17/2018 12:17:51 AM

Do you honestly think most American gun owners are psychopaths with ridiculous motives and intentions?

2/17/2018 2:41:45 AM

I vehemently agree with JesusHChrist on this one

2/17/2018 2:57:50 AM

I, too, vehemently agree with stereotyping 200 million white Americans

2/17/2018 3:25:17 AM

Quote :

"Do you honestly think most American gun owners are psychopaths with ridiculous motives and intentions?"

No. I just think they're incredibly stupid and transparently full of shit. They hide behind the "tyrants can't haz muh liberties" argument because it's convenient and they're too fucking lazy to actually explore what tyranny is, or when/how it should be resisted.

2/17/2018 4:18:55 AM

JHC can point out some awful things but its difficult to compile a list of atrocities against the people by the state that did not occur due to the population being able to shoot back the last couple hundred years

2/17/2018 8:07:38 AM

While these people are not evil or psychopaths, they do represent the status quo. They’ll never do anything to disrupt the government which maintains it. Regardless of how often people pine for “small government” they still want to maintain the authority they have as a majority.

2/17/2018 9:39:26 AM

Do you understand why I continue to say that you've set up a straw man, and revolved your argument around some set of people that you've made up in your head? You've now gone so far as to make up quotes from those people.

Let me do the same thing.

Quote :

"You'd rather see thousands of people die than give up your ability to possibly put up an effective resistance to a hypothetical major encroachment on your civil liberties.... Lets break down the tradeoff here and do some real risk assessment."

(okay.. not a made up quote from someone I invented in my head... but certainly hyperbole)

If his position is about risk assessment, why is he not vehemently protesting the sale of alcohol at gas stations? [straw man] Drinking and driving kills far more people every year, and yet he's clearly okay with the sale of single serving alcohol at the same places you service your vehicle. Clearly he's not about risk analysis and public safety, his argument against guns is because he's afraid of guns. [kocked down the straw man]

Finally, I agree with you that the defense against tyranny argument doesn't hold a whole lot of water, because of my mass argument above. However; read the first two sentences of your last post:

Quote :

"Most people are not arguing for defense. They are making (or are attempting to make) a principled argument based on the political belief of resisting tyranny."

First off, there's an obvious contradiction there. Secondly, you can disagree with it, but they're still [in your words] making a principled argument based around "resistance" which is fundamentally the opposite of power projection.

[Edited on February 17, 2018 at 10:30 AM. Reason : .]

2/17/2018 10:22:32 AM

Quote :

"Why is that? Because that's not the real reason why gun enthusiasts like guns. The only real desire that animates their behavior, as you said, is "defense," which is largely revolved around the desire to protect members of their tribe (usually from the scary "other.")."

I don't think that's it. I don't think that any of these high-level, sociologist-speak explanations really even touch it.

Gun enthusiasts like guns because they were brought up with guns in a culture that says guns are cool and strong, while opposition to guns is weak, European, hippie liberal whining. The feelings about strength and coolness are easy to attach to concepts defense and resistance, but it's the gut feelings that motivate them with such ferocity.

The same goes for a large portion of the anti-gun side, many members of which have an irrational, visceral reaction to what is, by itself, an inanimate object. I have friends who will not enter a house where they know a gun to be present, even if they know everybody who will be in that house and think that all of them are good, level-headed, responsible people. It's as if they think the gun is going to get up and start shooting people on its own.

I know it's trite, but "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true. Or at least, it's half of the truth. The other, admittedly less eloquent half is "People can't kill lots of people without guns." There are two sides to this equation, and if you approached both of them I believe you could find a solution that left the vast majority of people satisfied. I don't follow the "It's not a gun issue, it's a mental health issue!" line because it's both. Yes, we need much saner gun restrictions. But at the same time...we've always had a lot of guns in this country. Even kids have had access to guns, since the beginning. But we didn't always have people shooting up schools every other day. This shit used to be rare, and now it isn't. I'm not going to be satisfied with any solution that doesn't try to address this half of the problem - that leaves large numbers of violent crazy people roaming around in a world that is increasingly creative in the field of lone-wolf violence. Obviously I think we should make it harder for violent crazy people to get guns, and I think that doing so will reduce the number of people that die violently in this country - but it's cold comfort if you get killed by the violent crazy guy with a pipe bomb or an SUV. Something in this country changed.

2/17/2018 11:27:17 AM

Cops and regular old criminals kill a lot of people with guns, too.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/4-laws-that-could-stem-the-rising-threat-of-mass-shootings/

Require guns to be titled like cars. If a gun attached to your name that isn't reported stolen gets used in a crime, you are criminally liable. That will get people to watch their guns really quickly. Also makes it much easier to spot anomalous purchasing behavior.

Buying sudafed shouldn't be harder and more controlled than guns.

2/17/2018 5:00:21 PM

Quote :

"Most people are not arguing for defense. They are making (or are attempting to make) a principled argument based on the political belief of resisting tyranny. I'm disposing of that myth because I believe that they actually only like guns because they like guns."

Not sure how you can claim it's a myth. Also, you believe they only like guns because they like guns. What evidence do you have to support this?

Most people that argue for the right to bear arms make multiple points while arguing in support of it. The protection from tyranny is one point but it's not the only one people make. I think the reason this one gets brought up so often though is because it's kind of the easiest one to make in an argument. But it's by no means the only point nor was it the only reason the founders established this right to begin with.

Quote :

"Yet, there are no meaningful movements being made by "armed militias" to push back on state abuses of power that are currently happening, and continue to happen in this country: "

This is because the state abuses of power are not killing people. We have a mechanism to push back on these abuses in this country. It's called voting.

Quote :

"1. Massive tax handouts that transfer wealth from the poor to the rich? Nothing. 2. Mass incarceration of minorities and the poor? Nothing. 3. Systems of surveillance that deny people from their right to privacy? Nothing. 4. The actual, literal murder of unarmed citizens from a militarized police force? Nothing. 5. Multiple elections where the winning candidate doesn't win a majority of the votes? Nothing. 6. Handouts to banks that devastate local economies and workers? Nothing."

1. Not a violent abuse of power. Vote better people in office.
2. Not a violent abuse of power. Vote better people in office.
3. Not a violent abuse of power. Vote better people in office.
4. Vote better people in office. With this particular point, if it continues it will eventually lead to a response from civilians (L.A. Riots as an example) and if it goes even further, an armed response from civilians.
5. Not a violent abuse of power. Vote better people in office. For this point, you can argue we try but it doesn't work. But we don't really try.
6. Not a violent abuse of power. Vote better people in office.

Look at the public outcry when a school shooting occurs. Where is an equivalent public outcry when any of the above happen? The closest we've come is the Occupy Wall Street movement, which was an utter joke.

In this country, when there is a true public outcry against something, most of the time we do actually make changes. Our politicians, as shitty as they are, nearly always act when the public speaks up loudly. We just don't do that. We post on Facebook and then go to the mall. This is why shit isn't changing. Collectively we aren't doing anything to make shit change.

For the anti-gun crowd, if it truly is about saving lives then I'd like to know why you aren't going crazy trying to ban cars, considering they kill more people every year. Is it because a car has utility? Guns do too. It's just that it's not a utility you would need every day which makes you think you don't need it. But in those times when you do need it, it becomes abundantly clear.

Quote :

"I know it's trite, but "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true. Or at least, it's half of the truth. The other, admittedly less eloquent half is "People can't kill lots of people without guns." There are two sides to this equation, and if you approached both of them I believe you could find a solution that left the vast majority of people satisfied. I don't follow the "It's not a gun issue, it's a mental health issue!" line because it's both. Yes, we need much saner gun restrictions. But at the same time...we've always had a lot of guns in this country. Even kids have had access to guns, since the beginning. But we didn't always have people shooting up schools every other day. This shit used to be rare, and now it isn't. I'm not going to be satisfied with any solution that doesn't try to address this half of the problem - that leaves large numbers of violent crazy people roaming around in a world that is increasingly creative in the field of lone-wolf violence. Obviously I think we should make it harder for violent crazy people to get guns, and I think that doing so will reduce the number of people that die violently in this country - but it's cold comfort if you get killed by the violent crazy guy with a pipe bomb or an SUV. Something in this country changed."

This.

[Edited on February 17, 2018 at 5:05 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on February 17, 2018 at 5:18 PM. Reason : a]

2/17/2018 5:00:50 PM

Controlling guns like cars is a great idea. Let's do it

2/17/2018 5:15:17 PM

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-parkland-florida-school-shooting-gun-control-nra-w516850

2/17/2018 5:17:46 PM

Quote :

"You'd rather see thousands of people die than give up your ability to possibly put up an effective resistance to a hypothetical major encroachment on your civil liberties. Lets break down the tradeoff here and do some real risk assessment. What do you put the probability of actually using your guns to quell government overreach at? because i put the probability of thousands being murdered by the very guns you want for protection at 100%. [Edited on February 16, 2018 at 10:45 PM. Reason : i don't see how any outcome without guns could be worse than what we have now] 2/16/2018 10:43:58 PM NeuseRvrRat hello Mr. NSA! 34340 Posts user info edit post some folks calls it a trolley problem i calls it a false dichotom"

Its a false dichotomy because we could do a lot more to lower the odds of guns falling into the wrong hands but gun owners actively oppose any of these measures; creating the dichotomy.

If gun owners had supported legislation to license and regulate gun ownership, maybe we wouldn't be at the point where reasonable people think getting rid of guns altogether is the solution.

2/17/2018 5:18:46 PM

^^That is a good article.

[Edited on February 17, 2018 at 5:21 PM. Reason : a]

2/17/2018 5:20:57 PM

Massive tax handouts to the wealthy that strip working people of their ability to provide basic necessities is ABSOLUTELY a violent abuse of power. Mass incarceration of civilians is ABSOLUTELY a violent abuse of power. Depriving a human of their citizenship is violent.

Creating wealth disparities that force people to live on the streets, or die without access to basic modes of healthcare is violent. The mass incarceration of minorities is violent. Denying a citizenry of their right to self governance is violent. How could you possibly argue otherwise?

Unchecked power is going to be violent. Why else would you seek it? People seek power to benefit themselves. And they gain their power by stripping it away from another, because that is what power is, and that is how it is obtained.

2/17/2018 5:41:09 PM

I was speaking about imminent physical violence but looking at the bigger picture/impact, I can agree with you regarding "violence."

[Edited on February 17, 2018 at 5:50 PM. Reason : a]

2/17/2018 5:50:18 PM

Quote :

"Could you expand on that last comment? You seem to be implying that the mere threat of an armed populace is what keeps a would be tyrannical government honest. "

Quote :

"What he is saying here is you don't have to win, you just have to not lose. A stalemate is a win for the population that is simply seeking to avoid extermination. Duke, apologies if I misrepresented what you said."

What I'm saying is that there is no need, in that scenario, for any sort of armed resistance to "win" against the U.S. military, tactically. That is obviously a completely absurd proposition. All I was saying is that all that would be required is for such a resistance to impose an unacceptably high cost on the government.

I didn't intend to conflate that statement with gun owners upholding broader civil rights against a tyrannical government; clearly the citizenry has been totally asleep at the wheel on that issue, and gun owners have been no different (and I wouldn't be surprised if, on average, they have been the most complicit). Hell, we're worse than asleep at the wheel as a nation--we (collectively) have actively encouraged the transgressions more than we've demanded they cease.


Back to my original point, though, I will say that I think part of the reason that there is no serious discussion or attempt to confiscate (or "forced buyback") scary black rifles, etc is because it would be a fucking bloodbath. Could the U.S. military and police forces do it? Yeah I guess, mostly, eventually...but not at anything even remotely resembling an acceptable cost, not by anyone's standards. So, yeah...the "mere threat" would serve to keep the government honest on that one.

The 2A is the teeth, but you are correct in that they have not been used, directly or as leverage or anything else, to defend the other rights.

2/17/2018 11:04:33 PM

Quote :

"Massive tax handouts to the wealthy that strip working people of their ability to provide basic necessities is ABSOLUTELY a violent abuse of power"

do you think the state owns all the income and they pass it out on april 15th? i'm trying to figure out your beef but it only makes sense if i think about it backwards?

[Edited on February 18, 2018 at 7:53 AM. Reason : s]

2/18/2018 7:52:18 AM

Quote :

"I know it's trite, but "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true. Or at least, it's half of the truth. The other, admittedly less eloquent half is "People can't kill lots of people without guns." There are two sides to this equation, and if you approached both of them I believe you could find a solution that left the vast majority of people satisfied. I don't follow the "It's not a gun issue, it's a mental health issue!" line because it's both. Yes, we need much saner gun restrictions. But at the same time...we've always had a lot of guns in this country. Even kids have had access to guns, since the beginning. But we didn't always have people shooting up schools every other day. This shit used to be rare, and now it isn't. I'm not going to be satisfied with any solution that doesn't try to address this half of the problem - that leaves large numbers of violent crazy people roaming around in a world that is increasingly creative in the field of lone-wolf violence. Obviously I think we should make it harder for violent crazy people to get guns, and I think that doing so will reduce the number of people that die violently in this country - but it's cold comfort if you get killed by the violent crazy guy with a pipe bomb or an SUV. Something in this country changed."

You bring up some good points, but I think we're pretty much doomed. One problem is social networking, the internet in general, and 24 hour news networks. Morgan Freeman said it best a while back when he said if these people didn't get a lot of attention for these shootings, they would just off themselves in a basement somewhere and we would never know about it. The news and internet is a great way to pass along stupid ideas (example: Tide Pod Challenge).

[Edited on February 18, 2018 at 11:11 AM. Reason : .]

2/18/2018 11:11:03 AM

https://mashable.com/2012/12/17/morgan-freeman-shooting-statement-hoak-fake/#0tfj2ddtVPqW

2/18/2018 11:51:20 AM