Support NeoGAF

[BANGS]

One can't really consider random civilians shooting at the army to be a reasonable counter-measure against a dictatorship.

I mean, if the dictator wants people left to rule, it does. The army is incredibly small compared to the civilian population. You ever watch A Bug's Life?

So I said why would you need something like an LMG or grenade launcher if you never attend to use it? Or even a rpg or stinger missile.

Oh that's now how I meant it. I meant it as people should know not to use their pistol as a replacement for a TV remote or baseball bat, shit like that...

I don't even know how to respond to people who bring this up. The level of paranoia someone has to have to say this with a straight face.

Tell that to the people of Europe in the 1940s...

 

[harrisk954]

I'm completely confused what this is supposed to mean, sorry I can't follow...


Yes I would absolutely be ok with that. Very true they aren't practical in normal personal use for sports, hunting, etcetera. But that's not why we have the 2nd amendment. We have it to protect us from government tyranny. As 404Ender just pointed out, we need to have access to everything they have to actually protect ourselves.

This is a ludicrous argument. Even the conservative icon, the "Holy of Holy, Shall He Rest In Peace" Justice Antonin Scalia, agrees with some limitations on guns and regulation on gun ownership is compatible with the 2nd Amendment, as he stated in the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller:

“Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed,” he said. “Obviously, the [Second Amendment] does not apply to arms that cannot be carried. It does not apply to cannons.”

Scalia also wrote in the Heller case that the Supreme Court considers it constitutional for governments “...to consider... prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ... as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Gun rights advocates protest that any of these limitations would be unconstitutional. They are simply wrong, according to Scalia:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

 

[BANGS]

Im with BANGS; if some kids have to die

Don't drag my name into views I don't share with you, thanks...

This is a ludicrous argument. Even the conservative icon, the "Holy of Holy, Shall He Rest In Peace" Justice Antonin Scalia, agrees with some limitations on guns and regulation on gun ownership is compatible with the 2nd Amendment

I'm not a conservative and don't take my orders from that man. He's no role model to me. Color me surprised a member of the government doesn't want us able to defend ourselves from the government...

 

[TheMikado]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379

I understand the legal issues surrounding it, what I don't understand is why this is even a law to begin with.

 

[krazen]

Don't drag my name into views I don't share with you, thanks...

ehh, I think I pretty succintly summed up the argument. Its pretty black and white as far as your take is concerned

 

[lil puff]

What do people mean when they speak of defending from the government?

Is it that one day, the government will send the military into our neighborhoods with tanks, projectiles, bombs ... in an effort to kill off all civilians in the US?

 

[harrisk954]

I'm not a conservative and don't take my orders from that man. Color me surprised a member of the government doesn't want us able to defend ourselves from the government...

Libertarian? I'm not casting aspersions at you. Just a civil discussion... But your view is in line with a strict construction of a document that is almost 250 years old as opposed to a "living" document. That is why I brought up Scalia... he is as strict a constructionist as you can get and even he sees the need for some limitations.

 

[TheMikado]

The right of disobedience against unlawful actions is important. The "government" doesn't just involve the federal government.

It involves people, such as police officers acting independently.

Civilians should always be able to maintain the right to defend themselves from unlawful abuses of power. It doesn't have to be in a large or wide scale and ironically the 2nd amendment protects people from government abuses everyday.

 

[OH-MyCar]

I do like the old Chris Rock bit of making bullets cost $5,000.

Honestly though, I think it's a nasty part of our country that we can't effectively put the lid back on at this point. America is about as individualistic and anti-collectivist as it gets. If you look at the polar opposite, say, places like Japan, you still have disturbed assholes who go on stabbing and mutilation sprees. I feel like we would have to collectively reduce our "gun-lust" as a culture before they're no longer the (incredibly efficient) tools in these kinds of ordeals. Regulation helps, but too much of it also further plays into the psychology of the aforementioned mentality. In other words, this is something that has to be addressed at the cultural level and I'm not sure if there's a way to do that which isn't heavy-handed and counter-productive.

I guess that's all a fancy way of saying:

 

[krazen]

The right of disobedience against unlawful actions is important. The "government" doesn't just involve the federal government.

It involves people, such as police officers acting independently.

Civilians should always be able to maintain the right to defend themselves from unlawful abuses of power. It doesn't have to be in a large or wide scale and ironically the 2nd amendment protects people from government abuses everyday.

Everyday? Id like to see reciepts, lol. You have your outliers like Clive Bundy but foe the most part armed confrontation with officials tend to leave the civilians at their mercy based on numbers alone.

I understand and agree the concept of armed protection against the powers that B(shouts to death trips) , but right now it feels like something that Is only successful for a certain demographic of gun ownership

 

[TheMikado]

Everyday? Id like to see reciepts, lol. You have your outliers like Clive Bundy but foe the most part armed confrontation with officials tend to leave the civilians at their mercy based on numbers alone.

I understand and agree the concept of armed protection against the powers that B(shouts to death trips) , but right now it feels like something that Is only successful for a certain demographic of gun ownership

Its what causes Police to approach situations cautiously and not to use guns as threats (At least supposedly) But the idea is that because a suspect may also legally be holding a weapon a provocation is the worse outcome.
Obviously I cannot show statistics for what it would be like in the US if the populace did not have guns and the police did.

 

[appaws]

Ok so help me straighten this out. CDC research into guns and mental health should not be allowed? Further gun registration should not be allowed?

Please explain why these are bad things?

Any research should be allowed. It is protected by the First Amendment. But why should taxpayers have to pay for it? Can't all these anti-gun organizations do the research themselves...?

So you would be okay with some owning a grenade launcher but not okay if they don't use it? Or LMG? Why would you even need them

Honestly I will never understand american gun controls which lets you have an automatic Rifle.... Why would you even need that as a normal person?


I also believe that the current Cop situation could be controlled as well. The moment cops do not fear that every person they stop could have a legal weapon to kill me I would be also more aggressive and scared with every movement of the suspect. All in all I see no real need for any rifle like gun to be in possession of normal people (except with a hunter license)

Need, Need, Need. Rights have nothing to do with what you think is a need. Rosa Parks did not NEED to sit in the front of the bus....she had a RIGHT to sit in the front of the bus. I have a right to my guns, nobody else gets to decide which ones I need.

Can we drop this absurd idea that the 2nd Amendment protects us from government tyranny in 2018?

I don’t care how many guns you own or how many people own them. They aren’t stopping the US military and it’s army of tanks, fighter jets, bombers, drones, etc.

The gap in weapons technology between the military and civilians has increased exponentially since the time of the Founding Fathers.

I mean, if the dictator wants people left to rule, it does. The army is incredibly small compared to the civilian population. You ever watch A Bug's Life?


Oh that's now how I meant it. I meant it as people should know not to use their pistol as a replacement for a TV remote or baseball bat, shit like that...


Tell that to the people of Europe in the 1940s...

Or the insurgents of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam. It has nothing to do with winning, it has to do with inflicting such costs that the operation becomes impractical. The Blue states might want to disarm the red...but they can't because the costs in blood would be too high.

 

[BANGS]

ehh, I think I pretty succintly summed up the argument. Its pretty black and white as far as your take is concerned

If putting words in someone's mouth is a summary of their argument... who's your debate professor, Cathy Newman?

Libertarian? I'm not casting aspersions at you. Just a civil discussion... But your view is in line with a strict construction of a document that is almost 250 years old as opposed to a "living" document. That is why I brought up Scalia... he is as strict a constructionist as you can get and even he sees the need for some limitations.

I don't subscribe to petty labels. If you label me, you negate me...

I don't care what Scalia says, and honestly I don't care what the constitution says either. I mean I do care in the sense that it's the basis of our way of life, but even if it said something different I'd still be of the mindset that we should be able to defend ourselves against tyranny. You may be able to find examples of a few modern societies without guns that are currently doing quite well for last couple decades, but I have mankind's entire history backing up the notion that a defenseless civilian population can never end well...

 

[Catphish]

I get the need for the 2nd amendment, but I also believe that, If the government truly intended to subjugate the populace, our small arms stockpile wouldn't provide much resistance.

Ultimately, guns are too easy to acquire, and the threat posed by mental cases with a fucking armory in their basement has so far proven to be a hell of a lot more substantial than a tyrannical government.

This country lost its true freedom decades ago, if it ever had it at all. I think the right to bear arms is outdated, and currently doing more harm than good.

Maybe time to amend the amendment.

 

[TheShadowLord]

Any research should be allowed. It is protected by the First Amendment. But why should taxpayers have to pay for it? Can't all these anti-gun organizations do the research themselves...?
.[h.

why are you so afraid that if the cdc did research on gun violence it would lead to more gun control? this is something the nra would say

 

[BANGS]

why are you so afraid that if the cdc did research on gun violence it would lead to more gun control? this is something the nra would say

Can't speak for him, but we already have research that tries to discredit gun ownership. For example, statistically, you are more likely to be shot if you own a gun in your home. Now, that is by no means an argument against responsible gun ownership, it actually shows how irresponsible our gun owners are statistically. But data like that can be used as an argument to weak minded people as to why people shouldn't own guns altogether, and that's really dangerous...

 

[rokkerkory]

How about less talk and more action?

 

[David___]

How about less talk and more action?

Too much thoughts and prayers to be had

Also can't talk about action after a shooting otherwise you're "politicizing" the issue, so good luck having a span of time long enough where you can actually talk about it without there being yet another shooting

 

[hammysaurusrex]

I think my main frustration is the left tends to think there's some "magical number" of dead children that's going to suddenly make people change their mind. If you believe in gun control, just advocate gun control openly and honestly. Stop pretending that suddenly dead kid #11480918 is going to bring a change of heart to the country.

Cowering in fear behind the NRA is a waste of time. It doesn't matter if you're a far-left, center-left, or even center politician that supports the second amendment - the political overlap of the NRA also includes anti-immigration and anti-black policies; if you aren't 100% in line with their entire agenda, the NRA will run attack ads against you. It's better to just take your lumps instead of playing strictly with their framing of the issue.

 

[Tumle]

I wish that the the US was just as passionate about the “theoretical” climate change, as they are about a very theoretical tyrannical government taking over(trump is not there yet, and it’s hyperbole to even suggest that )..
I have no idea why anyone off the streets should be able to buy military grade weapons.. there should be at least some form of background check that insures that the person buying such a weapon is at a reasonable mental state, plus some sort of certificate that they know how to handle such weapon..
But i must say that discussion gives a great insights into Americans distrust of government.. though with out any data to support there reasons..

 

[RafterXL]

You don't get to decide what another citizen "needs." Rosa Parks didn't "need" to sit in the front of the bus...but she wanted to and it was her God-given RIGHT to. That is enough.

Plus, you are wrong. Lots of people hunt with AR pattern rifles. It's very common.

Did you really just compare Rosa Park's to owning a gun? ...like wtf?

And, no, owning a gun isn't a god given right...lol. Please show me the Bible verse that mentions guns.

Gun ownership is a constitutional right, given through an amendment, god has fuck all to do with it. Also, the right to bear arms means you can own a gun, it doesn't mean they can't ban individual weapons and banning those weapons would no way infringe on the second amendment.

 

[BANGS]

I think my main frustration is the left tends to think there's some "magical number" of dead children that's going to suddenly make people change their mind. If you believe in gun control, just advocate gun control openly and honestly. Stop pretending that suddenly dead kid #11480918 is going to bring a change of heart to the country.

The left loves to stand on the graves of dead children, in order to act like anyone who supports guns is a bad person who wants dead children. Hell, krazen just half assed tried that against me. It's such a sad and simple strategy that only the weakest minds could possibly fall for...

 

[hammysaurusrex]

The left loves to stand on the graves of dead children, in order to act like anyone who supports guns is a bad person who wants dead children. Hell, krazen just half assed tried that against me. It's such a sad and simple strategy that only the weakest minds could possibly fall for...

I don't think far-right people enjoy dead children, but the observation that there is no amount of dead children that will move their opinion on a policy issue is completely fair.

 

[Alx]

I wish that the the US was just as passionate about the “theoretical” climate change, as they are about a very theoretical tyrannical government taking over(trump is not there yet, and it’s hyperbole to even suggest that )..

I'm honestly curious about what kind of scenario would be even partly realistic, for the US government to become a military dictatorship. I mean, step 1 would probably be "get all the generals on your side", and that seems unrealistic already. In small countries a handful of generals/colonels can overturn a government, but how would it work with something the size of the US ? And in a federation, even (maybe there could be a putsch in a single state like Texas for example, but then the other states would intervene).

 

[BANGS]

I don't think far-right people enjoy dead children, but the observation that there is no amount of dead children that will move their opinion on a policy is issue is completely fair.

Yes I agree that is fair. Because this isn't an issue of responsible gun ownership, which is what the far-right is fighting for. I mean look at our society, the most gun violence happens in far-left leaning states and cities. Irresponsible gun ownership is the problem, and NRA IMO is part of that problem, but most right wingers want RESPONSIBLE gun ownership...

 

[krazen]

The left loves to stand on the graves of dead children, in order to act like anyone who supports guns is a bad person who wants dead children. Hell, krazen just half assed tried that against me. It's such a sad and simple strategy that only the weakest minds could possibly fall for...

lol. Here’s the thing; mass shooting happens left is the only one to offer a solution, abet a misguided one. The right just says, “DONT TOUCH MY GUNS,, GOVERNMENT MIGHT GET ME,” without any real solution to the mass murder problem. Not even easy layups like mental illness screenings, etc (which would be ineffective imho, but when has that stoped America from putting on a fake bandaid as if they fixed the problem?). Thats my issue with your replies and the general arguments in the post; one side has a solution and as opposed to proposing their own solution, its cya


While I amped it up to ten in my reply, I was being pretty honest with my feelings. This country is pretty indifferent to death unless its relateable, kinda hard for me to muster a fuck when the fucks it does give is based on proximity and relatability(are they US citizens, are they blond and attractive enough to sell a story for? Is there a cool angle can we put on the news to get more clicks).

 

[BANGS]

Here’s the thing; mass shooting happens left is the only one to offer a solution, abet a misguided one. The right just says, “DONT TOUCH MY GUNS,, GOVERNMENT MIGHT GET ME,” without any real solution to the mass murder problem.

I agree, and it's a fucking shame. The NRA can oftentimes be a fear mongering ridiculous organization, and the politicians don't wanna walk that tightrope of going against them. But normal people are understanding we need to fix things, it's only a matter of time before that translates to the top...

But honestly IMO the underlying problem isn't even something that can be legislated, it's a cultural issue. Any other legislation would just be a band-aid. Unless we make it law that parents can't be pieces of shit who don't teach their children how to not be pieces of shit, this will never end. Take all the guns away you want, the violence in this country will continue. These loons will have no problem throwing bombs and running over people in trucks...

 

[TheMikado]

I'm honestly curious about what kind of scenario would be even partly realistic, for the US government to become a military dictatorship. I mean, step 1 would probably be "get all the generals on your side", and that seems unrealistic already. In small countries a handful of generals/colonels can overturn a government, but how would it work with something the size of the US ? And in a federation, even (maybe there could be a putsch in a single state like Texas for example, but then the other states would intervene).

Again that's kind of the point and it is illustrated multiple times in US history, not just once.

1) Revolutionary War, where the US declared it's independence from its ruling government. This was only possible due to the use of arms.
2) Civil War, states attempted to secede and the US military said no. The Southern states were able to defend themselves. Regards on your stance of the war, had a President who would have ruled in favor of slavery been elected, the North states would have the means to secede and defend themselves.

Further it prevents:
-Any attempt by the US force of force able procure resources from a state without its consent.
-Any governing body, even at the local level from abuse of power on an individual.

The joke of preventing tyranny is absurd because that's exactly what it does. It's not a hypothetical situation where the US government and army turn on its citizens, its more like a hypothetical situation where the US gov and significant portion of the other states decide they want to invade California and its citizens having some means of fighting back on a local level.

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

Yes I agree that is fair. Because this isn't an issue of responsible gun ownership, which is what the far-right is fighting for. I mean look at our society, the most gun violence happens in far-left leaning states and cities. Irresponsible gun ownership is the problem, and NRA IMO is part of that problem, but most right wingers want RESPONSIBLE gun ownership...

What point are you trying to make?
Whatever it is, you're completely wrong.

Firearm mortality by state (top 10 in descending order):
1) Alaska
2) Alabama
3) Louisiana
4) Mississipi
5) Oklahoma
6) Missouri
7) Montana
8) New Mexico
9) Arkansas
10) South Carolina

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

 

[BANGS]

What point are you trying to make?
Whatever it is, you're completely wrong.

Firearm mortality by state (top 10 in descending order):
1) Alaska
2) Alabama
3) Louisiana
4) Mississipi
5) Oklahoma
6) Missouri
7) Montana
8) New Mexico
9) Arkansas
10) South Carolina

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

Not sure how you filtered your data, but when I click by the 10 states with most deaths:

 

[Corrik]

I am a Republican. I do not own guns. My family all hunted. I do not. My fiancee wants a gun for protection, I do not allow it in my house. I think guns a lot of times escalate situations unnecessarily. I think it is impossible to stop people who want to use guns inappropriately from getting them.


With that said, the right to bear arms is an amendment in our bill of rights. Not a privilege but a right. If they wish to alter that, the governors need to come together to alter the amendment. That will never happen.

You cannot take rights guaranteed by our bill of rights away without proper course. You do it for one, and it becomes easier for others.

 

[harrisk954]

If putting words in someone's mouth is a summary of their argument... who's your debate professor, Cathy Newman?


I don't subscribe to petty labels. If you label me, you negate me...

I don't care what Scalia says, and honestly I don't care what the constitution says either. I mean I do care in the sense that it's the basis of our way of life, but even if it said something different I'd still be of the mindset that we should be able to defend ourselves against tyranny. You may be able to find examples of a few modern societies without guns that are currently doing quite well for last couple decades, but I have mankind's entire history backing up the notion that a defenseless civilian population can never end well...

So, do you believe in any limitations on gun ownership? Weapons ownership?

 

[KevinKeene]

The whole 2nd amendment argument is so dumb. If you are truly afraid of your government (sigh), then do this:

Have every town/district manage a building that's super secured and is filled with enough guns to arm civilian fighters in case of the government going Voldemort. Denocratically elect a civilian council that has exclusive access to the gun storage building. Now everyone can be happy without guns, because if the government ever became evil, guns would be readily available. But they're no longer part of your everyday life.

Too much win? :/

 

[BANGS]

So, do you believe in any limitations on gun ownership? Weapons ownership?

The same limits place on our own military.

 

[BANGS]

The whole 2nd amendment argument is so dumb. If you are truly afraid of your government (sigh), then do this:

Have every town/district manage a building that's super secured and is filled with enough guns to arm civilian fighters in case of the government going Voldemort. Denocratically elect a civilian council that has exclusive access to the gun storage building. Now everyone can be happy without guns, because if the government ever became evil, guns would be readily available. But they're no longer part of your everyday life.

Too much win? :/

Not a horrible idea honestly. Not perfect, but far better than the usual ideas...

 

[Alx]

Again that's kind of the point and it is illustrated multiple times in US history, not just once.

1) Revolutionary War, where the US declared it's independence from its ruling government. This was only possible due to the use of arms.
2) Civil War, states attempted to secede and the US military said no. The Southern states were able to defend themselves. Regards on your stance of the war, had a President who would have ruled in favor of slavery been elected, the North states would have the means to secede and defend themselves.

The Revolutionary war was fought at a time when the colonies/US were much smaller than now, and war was fought with more balanced weapons (even then it was mostly fought with war weapons provided by external allies, so the ability of owning over-the-counter weapons wouldn't have changed much one way or another).
Civil War is states fighting each other, so it's regular army A vs regular army B, private ownership of weapons doesn't make a difference either.
And of course all of that happened more than a century ago at the latest. That was before cars, planes, drones, bombs, internet, nukes, tanks, helicopters... An insurrection or a civil war today would work with entirely different rules, and would only have a chance of happening if the insurgent/rebels have access to a full-equipped (and trained) army with heavy weapons, not just guns.

Further it prevents:
-Any attempt by the US force of force able procure resources from a state without its consent.
-Any governing body, even at the local level from abuse of power on an individual.

I'm not sure I understand the scenarios you're describing. For example if a cop is abusing his authority against an individual, the individual should be able to shoot him ?

 

[Joyful]

I love this hypothetical situation rednecks have where they think the gubment will turn on them one day and think owning a gun will save them. No, you are completely outmatched and have been for some time.

 

[TheMikado]

The Revolutionary war was fought at a time when the colonies/US were much smaller than now, and war was fought with more balanced weapons (even then it was mostly fought with war weapons provided by external allies, so the ability of owning over-the-counter weapons wouldn't have changed much one way or another).
Civil War is states fighting each other, so it's regular army A vs regular army B, private ownership of weapons doesn't make a difference either.
And of course all of that happened more than a century ago at the latest. That was before cars, planes, drones, bombs, internet, nukes, tanks, helicopters...

I'm not sure I understand the scenarios you're describing. For example if a cop is abusing his authority against an individual, the individual should be able to shoot him ?

Yes, if a cop, was presenting themselves as a cop wants to attempt to rob or commit a murder, you have the right to defend yourself through armaments.

Further, no your assessment of the army values of those time periods are incorrect.
Regardless the point is to show there threat of tyranny was never a concern that the Us government in full was going to turn on every single citizen. But that select citizens could become targets of government entities and reserve the right to defend themselves against such if it were deemed unlawful.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

You cannot take rights guaranteed by our bill of rights away without proper course. You do it for one, and it becomes easier for others.

The sanctimony of the constitution unfortunately isn't an end-all argument; the government ignores constitutional rights all the time, see civil forfeiture.

The Constitution doesn't protect the second amendment - it's a piece of paper. A significant voting bloc that constantly scares politicians absolutely shitless protects the second amendment.

I'm no fan of gun nuts, but it's hard to deny they've done a great job punching above their weight in terms of legislative power that you would not expect them to have going strictly by the numbers. I mean hell, there are Republicans that will turn on Medicare and commit guaranteed political suicide before they turn on guns.

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

Not sure how you filtered your data, but when I click by the 10 states with most deaths:

Rate. Even if you're going to be intellectually dishonest and sort by overall numbers, you're still wrong.

 

[ScHlAuChi]

I don't believe in limits on weapons. Whatever the government has access to, I should have access to.

Like nukes?

 

[appaws]

why are you so afraid that if the cdc did research on gun violence it would lead to more gun control? this is something the nra would say

ZOMG!!!! The NRA!!!!?!?!?! LOL, I'm a life member and donor. The NRA are heroes.

Why exactly do we need a government agency "researching" restrictions on our rights...? Again, you can go do a study. Anti-gun groups can go do a study? Michael Bloomberg can provide money for 1,000 "studies" that say guns are bad, 24oz sodas are bad. Why do you insist that it has to be funded by taxpayer money?

Did you really just compare Rosa Park's to owning a gun? ...like wtf?

And, no, owning a gun isn't a god given right...lol. Please show me the Bible verse that mentions guns.

Gun ownership is a constitutional right, given through an amendment, god has fuck all to do with it. Also, the right to bear arms means you can own a gun, it doesn't mean they can't ban individual weapons and banning those weapons would no way infringe on the second amendment.

Yes. Rosa Parks had a right to equal treatment, and we have a right to bear arms.

No, it came through as a right of an Englishman. The constitution does not grant rights, only recognizes rights that are inherent. Rights that God gives us because we are human.

I love this hypothetical situation rednecks have where they think the gubment will turn on them one day and think owning a gun will save them. No, you are completely outmatched and have been for some time.

You mean nobody has ever stood up to the big, bad US government. Take a look at a history book. Index: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.

You are missing the point. It is about inflicting costs that make an invader or illegitimate authority's position untenable. (Like what happened to us in Vietnam, eventually the people of the country were not willing to pay the costs needed, even if they could "win.") How much blood are people in Blue states willing to shed to disarm the citizens of Red States?

 

[Moneal]

Rate. Even if you're going to be intellectually dishonest and sort by overall numbers, you're still wrong.

Bangs said Most gun violence, as in highest amount, not per capita or rate. So before you label someone intellectually dishonest you might want to work off their original argument.

 

[BANGS]

Like nukes?

Yes and no.... yes because it's a deterrent for our gov't to use against us, no because even the government shouldn't have nukes IMO...

Rate. Even if you're going to be intellectually dishonest and sort by overall numbers, you're still wrong.

Never mentioned rate, I said "most"...

 

[Vicetrailia]

ZOMG!!!! The NRA!!!!?!?!?! LOL, I'm a life member and donor. The NRA are heroes.

Why exactly do we need a government agency "researching" restrictions on our rights...? Again, you can go do a study. Anti-gun groups can go do a study? Michael Bloomberg can provide money for 1,000 "studies" that say guns are bad, 24oz sodas are bad. Why do you insist that it has to be funded by taxpayer money?

Government research doesn't investigate to place restrictions. It gives us some factual basis for how society operates. With that information we proceed as we will.

 

[Darryl]

I don't even know how to respond to people who bring this up. The level of paranoia someone has to have to say this with a straight face.

To say that government's can't be tyrannical? It seems ridiculous ya but every 20 years there's a new generation of adult thinkers who shed the skin of everything the prior generation didn't think was a priority to teach them. Lots of historical perspective is being lost constantly and newer generation's live with increasingly hollow memories of our past mistakes. The Holocaust is now going out of memory, in the grand scheme of things it was a recent event. I don't think enough time has passed since the last time taking guns has been associated with mass tragedy to think that somehow we are now beyond it

 

[MC Safety]

I'm honestly curious about what kind of scenario would be even partly realistic, for the US government to become a military dictatorship. I mean, step 1 would probably be "get all the generals on your side", and that seems unrealistic already. In small countries a handful of generals/colonels can overturn a government, but how would it work with something the size of the US ? And in a federation, even (maybe there could be a putsch in a single state like Texas for example, but then the other states would intervene).

Think smaller.

What if someone did not accept the results of a legally binding election and refused to accede to a legal and peaceful transfer of power?

 

[Alx]

Think smaller.

What if someone did not accept the results of a legally binding election and refused to accede to a legal and peaceful transfer of power?

Don't you have some authority that can validate or invalidate an election based on the constitutional right ? Supreme court probably ? That's the usual concept of powers and counter-powers in an institution. It happens all the time over here actually, in all kinds of elections. "Candidate X won but had unfair practices during the campaign ? Appeal to the Court and it can cancel the results".

Anyway in your scenario I don't see where guns would be useful. If any election can be contested by shooting at people, you would enter a world of chaos.

 

[TheMikado]

ZOMG!!!! The NRA!!!!?!?!?! LOL, I'm a life member and donor. The NRA are heroes.

Why exactly do we need a government agency "researching" restrictions on our rights...? Again, you can go do a study. Anti-gun groups can go do a study? Michael Bloomberg can provide money for 1,000 "studies" that say guns are bad, 24oz sodas are bad. Why do you insist that it has to be funded by taxpayer money?

The problem isn't about funding by taxpayer money, its about research at all and when we have laws like this gem of a law:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-can-ask-patients-about-guns-court-rules.html

A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that Florida doctors can talk to patients about gun safety, declaring a law aimed at restricting such discussions a violation of the First Amendment's right to free speech.

 

[BANGS]

A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that Florida doctors can talk to patients about gun safety, declaring a law aimed at restricting such discussions a violation of the First Amendment's right to free speech.

The fact that this is even a thing completely validates my mistrust of... everyone lol