(December 17, 2012 at 9:21 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: I find the entire debate arround the question of "if the goverment should turn into tyranny" to be absurd, because it is unlikely to happen and as far as I know never happened in history.

As an American, I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

(December 17, 2012 at 7:40 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(December 17, 2012 at 5:31 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Let's be realistic: the second amendment is going to do jack shit against a government determined to grind you down. What good is your handcannon going to be when the enemy has drones, spy satellites, and can monitor all your communications--programs which were championed by guys in government who seem totally okay with the amendment?

Doesn't it seem like both ends are being played by the same people?

In a practical sense, the second amendment is entirely pointless as its intended purpose is obsolete.

I've heard this argument many times, and I don't buy it. We can't even properly subdue small population countries in the middle east. How many people are there in the Taliban? All the drones and spy satellites and we haven't taken out them yet. There are 300 million Americans. Armed and motivated and there is very little the US army could do.

How about this argument? How many times have we had to shed a tyrant off our backs in the last 200 years? None. How many civilians has the 2nd amendment killed? Hundreds of thousands. Not a good track record, IMHO. Time to amend the 2nd amendment.

(December 17, 2012 at 9:25 pm)Annik Wrote:

(December 17, 2012 at 9:21 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: I find the entire debate arround the question of "if the goverment should turn into tyranny" to be absurd, because it is unlikely to happen and as far as I know never happened in history.

As an American, I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

why? Can you give an example?

I see. I phrased myself wrong:

It never happened in history that the head of goverment in a democratic nation used the politicaly independent body of a nations defence forces to establish a dictatorship with the former head of goverment in power.

(December 17, 2012 at 9:26 pm)orogenicman Wrote: How about this argument? How many times have we had to shed a tyrant off our backs in the last 200 years? None. How many civilians has the 2nd amendment killed? Hundreds of thousands. Not a good track record, IMHO. Time to amend the 2nd amendment.

Finally the discussion's gotten somewhere I can participate in.

First off, if we define "tyrants" by the same definition of those who waged the Revolutionary War, we should've had another revolution every single time the government made the entire nation go do something when there were dissenting states who did not wish to do whatever it was the federal government was making them do.

Second, the second amendment hasn't killed anyone; the second amendment does NOT guarantee your right to go and murder people. It only allows you to "bear arms." Arms can be considered any kind of weapon; granted, back then none of them could have imagined the firepower we can rain from the skies nowadays, but would that have changed their minds? I doubt it. After the point of owning the weapon, it is up to law to determine what you can and cannot do with your weapon, be it a gun or a knife or a rock. The second amendment needs no amending unless it's going to add "unless you're a crackpot with a history of theft, violent crime, and/or sexual assault, and/or with a history of mental/emotional instability."

Going back to the tyrant thing, I would have GLADLY joined into an overthrowing of one in the US about ten years ago if people had ever gotten the balls [and brains] to do so.

This argument is essentially the same about marijuana legalization. Almost verbatim, in fact. Switch around some words and it'd be the same damn thing. "Irresponsible user or already violent person on weed goes and kills people; MUST BE THE WEED! SILENCE ALL LEGALIZATION TALKS OF IT! Nevermind the thousands of others who didn't, haven't, and won't do this, we have one incident per hundreds of thousands of users of weed involved with violence while high, so let's put our boot down on the other hundreds of thousands NOT causing incidents. Cuz this makes sense!"

This is the same argument with guns. MILLIONS of gun owners in the US. HUNDREDS of millions, in fact. If even a TENTH of them were actually using them irresponsibly to commit crimes, first of all our homicide rate would make everything happening in the Middle East look like fucking British Tea Time, and second of all, THEN I'd start saying there MIGHT be something to the argument that guns are not being responsibly used in ways that we should expect.

Until over 50% [the majority] of the gun owners in this country start using them to go trigger-happy on people willy-nilly, the argument that guns should be illegal for everyone is baseless, unfounded, and born of irrational emotional response, not logic.

And here in the US we don't even have close to 10% of gun owners using them to go gunning down others. Not even close.

Seriously, the whole "BAN THEM ALL, THAT'S ALL WE SHOULD DO!" idea is fucking stupid. It's a kindergarten-level disciplinary action. "Uh oh, Little Billy has just been caught jerking off with his Elmer's glue so you've all lost your glue privileges for the week!" Maybe that kindergarten level mentality worked BACK THEN but I'm a grown-ass man, and if you try to tell me you're taking away my guns that I DON'T use to go around shooting every poor bastard in the mall because someone else did I'm going to laugh in your fucking face and dare you to TRY, and if you do, you're trying to take my property, therefore you're a thief, and you're stealing from me...and then, I have a reason...

I just want to point out that most people do not realize that a former Vice President almost started a war and split the country in half. His name was Aaron Burr. He was even impeached for treason, but let go. Nonetheless, historians have enough evidence to assume he was a douchehat that wanted his own half of the U.S. He was also almost the president, but missed on a technicality and wound up Vice President to the man who had defeated him.

History. It's one of those things you should care a little about before suggesting that such and such a thing never happens.

---

(December 17, 2012 at 9:21 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: True resistance against national socialism never came out of the army,

Oh, really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_Stauffenberg

This guy was raring for it for a few years before he tried to actually fucking kill Hitler. I'm pretty sure it says there that he was, dare I say it, in the army. That's resistance, German and don't try that no true Scotsman thing on such a thing as resistance. It doesn't work any better in that context.

Guns, lots of guns - always a hot button.

Having a 5 year old of my own, my heart aches for those parents who lost so much. My most heart-felt condolences to them now.


As for the issue:
People, it doesn't matter. We cannot make the Chinese UN-invent the gun anymore than we can take back our inventions of the nuclear bomb, mustard gas, napalm, and all the horrific things our species has produced to kill each other. It has always seemed a rather futile argument to me. Like anything else out of Pandora's Box ... it cannot be put back.


Keep in mind that BOTH sides of the argument have statistics on their side. We all see what we want to see don't we?

Don't forget us middleuns, Cin. Everyone always forgets the middle ground.

(December 17, 2012 at 10:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: I just want to point out that most people do not realize that a former Vice President almost started a war and split the country in half. His name was Aaron Burr. He was even impeached for treason, but let go. Nonetheless, historians have enough evidence to assume he was a douchehat that wanted his own half of the U.S. He was also almost the president, but missed on a technicality and wound up Vice President to the man who had defeated him.

History. It's one of those things you should care a little about before suggesting that such and such a thing never happens.

Let's not forget the fact that he killed Hamilton in a duel, with a gun.

---

(December 17, 2012 at 9:28 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: It never happened in history that the head of goverment in a democratic nation used the politicaly independent body of a nations defence forces to establish a dictatorship with the former head of goverment in power.

What a load of shit! You set up a gauntlet of conditions in an attempt to make your point.

1. Independent body of a nation's defence. Where is it that the military arm of a nation's defence is not under direct supervision of the controlling political party?

2. The point of establishing a dictatorship is to throw out the previous base of power. Eliminating a tyrant's succession by invoking the condition that the former head of state remain in place is fucking stupid. A tyrant/dictator, by definition, can't exist with the previous head of state in place. You have chosen to frame an arguable conclusion by definition that defies the meaning of the concept you were arguing against!!!!

(December 17, 2012 at 10:19 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

(December 17, 2012 at 9:26 pm)orogenicman Wrote: How about this argument? How many times have we had to shed a tyrant off our backs in the last 200 years? None. How many civilians has the 2nd amendment killed? Hundreds of thousands. Not a good track record, IMHO. Time to amend the 2nd amendment.

Finally the discussion's gotten somewhere I can participate in.

First off, if we define "tyrants" by the same definition of those who waged the Revolutionary War, we should've had another revolution every single time the government made the entire nation go do something when there were dissenting states who did not wish to do whatever it was the federal government was making them do.

Second, the second amendment hasn't killed anyone; the second amendment does NOT guarantee your right to go and murder people. It only allows you to "bear arms." Arms can be considered any kind of weapon; granted, back then none of them could have imagined the firepower we can rain from the skies nowadays, but would that have changed their minds? I doubt it. After the point of owning the weapon, it is up to law to determine what you can and cannot do with your weapon, be it a gun or a knife or a rock. The second amendment needs no amending unless it's going to add "unless you're a crackpot with a history of theft, violent crime, and/or sexual assault, and/or with a history of mental/emotional instability."

Going back to the tyrant thing, I would have GLADLY joined into an overthrowing of one in the US about ten years ago if people had ever gotten the balls [and brains] to do so.

This argument is essentially the same about marijuana legalization. Almost verbatim, in fact. Switch around some words and it'd be the same damn thing. "Irresponsible user or already violent person on weed goes and kills people; MUST BE THE WEED! SILENCE ALL LEGALIZATION TALKS OF IT! Nevermind the thousands of others who didn't, haven't, and won't do this, we have one incident per hundreds of thousands of users of weed involved with violence while high, so let's put our boot down on the other hundreds of thousands NOT causing incidents. Cuz this makes sense!"

This is the same argument with guns. MILLIONS of gun owners in the US. HUNDREDS of millions, in fact. If even a TENTH of them were actually using them irresponsibly to commit crimes, first of all our homicide rate would make everything happening in the Middle East look like fucking British Tea Time, and second of all, THEN I'd start saying there MIGHT be something to the argument that guns are not being responsibly used in ways that we should expect.

Until over 50% [the majority] of the gun owners in this country start using them to go trigger-happy on people willy-nilly, the argument that guns should be illegal for everyone is baseless, unfounded, and born of irrational emotional response, not logic.

And here in the US we don't even have close to 10% of gun owners using them to go gunning down others. Not even close.

Seriously, the whole "BAN THEM ALL, THAT'S ALL WE SHOULD DO!" idea is fucking stupid. It's a kindergarten-level disciplinary action. "Uh oh, Little Billy has just been caught jerking off with his Elmer's glue so you've all lost your glue privileges for the week!" Maybe that kindergarten level mentality worked BACK THEN but I'm a grown-ass man, and if you try to tell me you're taking away my guns that I DON'T use to go around shooting every poor bastard in the mall because someone else did I'm going to laugh in your fucking face and dare you to TRY, and if you do, you're trying to take my property, therefore you're a thief, and you're stealing from me...and then, I have a reason...

PLEASE FUCKING STOP THIS PATHETIC TACTIC

This is just code speak for "fear them, they want to take my guns away"

You talk of percentages as if a human life is worth nothing. Remember that because by this same time tomorrow 32 more people will have died from everything from suicide, gang violence and domestic murder and accidental gun fire. Multiply that by 365.

That's a small number? Play those odds long enough and eventually even you will know someone murdered or affected by a gun death, or even get hurt yourself.

Now again, you stupidly argue "they want to take away my guns". Canada allows gun ownership too. So please explain to me why they have a lower rate of gun death than we do.

WE DONT want to take away guns from responsible people and idiotic arguments like this are constantly used to prevent any sensible policy that will reduce gun death.

This is the same lunatic argument Nader had to fight the car companies to get them to adapt safer standards.

"You are for seat belts and speed limits so therefore you are anti car".

Speaking of cars, why don't be outlaw them as well? Your number for gun fatalities comes out to between 11,000 and 12,000 deaths a year. Cars caused 35,900 deaths in 2009 (over 5,000 of which were merely pedestrians).