What's a gun going to do against a bomb or tank shell? Might as well use a spoon against a gun. Got me the freedom to own spoons.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
America Has Lost The War Against Guns - Deadspin
- Thread starter LyleLanley
- Start date
- Status
What's a gun going to do against a bomb or tank shell? Might as well use a spoon against a gun. Got me the freedom to own spoons.
You really think the American military would ever willingly carryout large scale operations against fellow Americans?
The second amendment is there to try and stop that from happening
They're completely misinformed if they think that's what the Second Amendment was about. Just look at the US government's response to the Whiskey Rebellion, which coincided with when the Second Amendment was adopted.
EDIT: Here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say about changing circumstances, of which I would include the necessity for militias, since we now have police and a national guard
Ayato Kanzaki
Member
You already have the police and the governement for that. Why don't you trust them?
(I know, if you're black, you have a valid reason to distrust the police, but we'll assume, for the sake of argument, that you're not).
US military personnel would never go against the civilian population, which coincidentally include their families, without a really, really good reason. So the second amendment is some uselesss relic of the past.
It's not that we live in our own realities, it's that your ignoring the reality in other countries:
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
Let's face it every country has the same amount of crazies. Certain countries might have better mental healthcare, but not exponentially so were one country averages one gun massacre a day with none in the other!
I'm building an AR-15 soon. Gonna be fun.
Agreed, however sometimes I find it annoying when legislation is introduced that's politically motivated and meant to play on people's emotions rather than actually prevent deaths. Closing the background check loophole was a good idea (and rather pathetic of congress to not pass it) but the proposed reinstatement of the assault weapons ban was pretty stupid. That shitbag Adam Lanza would have killed just as many people had the ban been in place. The assault weapons ban only exists to make people feel like we're making some kind of progress with regard to gun violence, when in reality such a ban would accomplish nothing (other than piss of a lot of people.)
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
yes and a 'well organised militia' that started shooting policemen or the army. how well would this go in this day and age?
The problem is (and it's always a problem with America) is that everyone seems to think it should be 'ALL THE GUNS' or 'NONE GUNS!'
you can GET guns in reasonable countries with sensible laws. it's just fucking hard and you have to take classes. you think that little wanker Adam Lanza would have passed a class? Half the gun nuts wouldn't be able to get one at all and that would be a huge win.
jakonovski
Member
I think it illustrates the problem when in a thread lamenting regular gun massacres, posters start telling each other how fun it is to play with guns.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
In Scotland we had the Dunblane school shooting in 1996. 16 young kids and a teacher were murdered by a physcopath with legal handguns. Strict gun laws were brought in shortly after.
Fast forward 18 years and the Scottish public were in uproar after it was found that some of the 440 police who were allowed to carry guns in the whole country, were carrying them when they weren't responding to an incident that needed them.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...of-police-carry-weapons-in-scotland-1-3414993
Scotland/UK and USA are obviously very different, but I don't think there was a massive demand for strict gun control in the country before Dunblane. Now we don't even like seeing them on our police.
From an outsiders perspective the USA may need to take baby steps. Even the tiniest bit of tighter control should be celebrated. Make sure it never goes back the way and keep pushing forward. That's how most of the great battles are won, civil rights, woman's rights, gay rights etc.
Fast forward 18 years and the Scottish public were in uproar after it was found that some of the 440 police who were allowed to carry guns in the whole country, were carrying them when they weren't responding to an incident that needed them.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...of-police-carry-weapons-in-scotland-1-3414993
Scotland/UK and USA are obviously very different, but I don't think there was a massive demand for strict gun control in the country before Dunblane. Now we don't even like seeing them on our police.
From an outsiders perspective the USA may need to take baby steps. Even the tiniest bit of tighter control should be celebrated. Make sure it never goes back the way and keep pushing forward. That's how most of the great battles are won, civil rights, woman's rights, gay rights etc.
I have huge respect for countries that took that step. But I think one thing you have to keep in mind is that the U.S. was founded on highly anti-government principles. We exist because we told England to get fucked. And when the founding fathers formed the foundation of the government, they tried to ensure that the government can't just strip away people's legal rights without the people having their say. We don't necessarily like the government telling us what to do. Additionally, guns have played a much different role in this country compared to other places. Vast swaths of the country were relatively lawless and incredibly harsh. Guns were an absolute necessity for many, many people. And while they're not really a necessity today, they're still a major part of the culture. So it may be easy to say that we should just look to other countries for advice on how to solve gun violence, but that's much easier said than done. As a society, that's not what we want.
There's more effort being spent on catching and punishing people who break copyright laws than catching those who sell guns to homicidal maniacs. This is because there's no money in stopping that shit from happening. There's way more money to be had by letting this arms race in America continue as it is with as little regulation as possible. This is how fucked up our priorities have become.
That's pretty extreme. We're not returning to the Wild West just because we as a society value something that you do not. We value guns to the extent that we're not going to get rid of them unless they have a major impact on society. Your society decided to get rid of them as a reaction to a tragic event, and that's perfectly fine. But it does not mean we are regressing.
show me your skeleton
Member
jesus christ.
UberTag
Member
boiled goose
good with gravy
I'm ok with having an honest conversation of freedom vs deaths.
Not my opinion. Actual statistics.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
The irony is that the U.S. government does tell citizens what to do all the time, and in many ways stronger than other cultures. The War on Drugs, for example, was a giant "'hell no' to your so-called 'freedoms'" from Uncle Sam. America is not the freedom-from-authority culture in the slightest now.
But I think you do lay out the situation of American history and its ideals perfectly. Independence from authority was the founding myth of the USA, and the gun is different from other freedoms like drugs in that it is the original guarantor of freedom from authority.
Plus watching a lot of Westerns recently, I'm reminded how for much of American history, the gun was the only vehicle to autonomy. Back then, I'd love the gun. I'd need to.
It's just that its a fetish at this point. There is zero anti-authoritarian power in the gun today. No amount of guns would present a group from getting Waco-ed. The second amendment guarantees no defense against power whatsoever. It leads only to two things: increased firearms-based recreation, and an increased murder rate.
I think you articulated perfectly the explanation for why that freedom is so cherished. It's cherished on mythical terms, a myth that cannot be overturned by any evidence.
SmackDaddy
Member
The fact there is a "latest school shooting" category isn't surprising to you? Disturbing? Fucked up? You're a lunatic dog.
One last thing I want to add, for the people saying the National Guard is today's "Militia" is simplifying that idea too much. We do not swear to protect people, we swear to protect the constitution (with our lives) and to obey the lawful orders of the governor and the president. One of the national guards chief duties is riot control, since were the only military force that can legally carry out operations in the US (technically) which means if there was a "rising up" we'd be the "bad guys." As long as those rising up were a technical minority of the populace, I see no reason why we wouldn't oppose them. I'd also assume that in this the hypothetical world in which America has become a tyrannical government that one of the first things they would do would be to "elevate" the families of the military, so they wouldn't have a fear of attacking civilians. Oh and they would probably remove the whole "legal orders" thing from the swearing ceremony.
Is this whole thing a long shot, sure, but I don't think we should pretend like the second amendment isn't specifically designed to add pressure to the US government.
Is this whole thing a long shot, sure, but I don't think we should pretend like the second amendment isn't specifically designed to add pressure to the US government.
Again, look into the Whiskey Rebellion. The same exact government which passed the Second Amendment participated in obliterating those folks. The Second was never about keeping hypothetical tyrannical governments in check. That's a myth, a narrative perpetuated by profiteers of the American arms race.
MilkyJoe
Member
You people are crazy.
Either that or it's a convenient excuse to hide behind someone taking your toys away.
Cause that's the reality of it. It's not so much for protection so much as it's losing your man toys.
Something that happened over 200 years ago is probably not comparable to something happening in the digital age.
Yup, that one very old example is not very useful, also people keep trying to act like a smaller, less equipped group couldn't drain a larger Superior forces of all it's cash though a long drawn out war *cough*Vietnam*cough*.
Such as the situation which led to us adopting the Second Amendment? Yup.
Are you talking about the 2nd amendment or the rebellion?
If it's about the rebellion, I believe the poster is discussing the intent of the 2nd amendment, so discussing events in there day seems pretty relevant.
You think 500 guys organizing against a tax in the musket age is a good test of the 2nd amendment's purpose? One in three Americans own a gun now. The police can't even justifiably shoot a guy without almost touching off a complete riot in the digital age. Any scenario where the government attempts to ban or take back firearms is hard to even fathom with how awful it'd go over.
I think the purpose of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with taking over the government. In fact, all evidence points to the contrary. I don't know what you're talking about, do you?
I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing. The poster you quoted brought up the whiskey rebellion, an instance where the writers of the Second Amendment used armed militiamen, as outlined in that amendment, to squelch armed rebellion, as an example of what the true intent of the amendment was. That it had absolutely nothing to do with putting pressure on the U.S. government. What are you talking about?
- Status