Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you assuming you know what I think, or are you trying to bait me into an argument?
You never answered from a couple of posts back........ after extrapolating my answers beyond what I stated.
I was responding to the proposition that victors get to write history. As true as that premise may be, I don't think it lends support to the premise that firearms are needed to prevent tyrannical actions by the government. If you have a specific question, I will address it.
So, while media dramatizes it, and political extremists on both ends of the spectrum retreat to their respective corners and politicize it, and politicians dance around it, there is enough incidents of threat to force us to consider sending our kids to school in body armor. As a civilized country, we're regressing, that's a country in crisis.
I was responding to the proposition that victors get to write history. As true as that premise may be, I don't think it lends support to the premise that firearms are needed to prevent tyrannical actions by the government. If you have a specific question, I will address it.
Ahhh. Okay. I do believe that the private ownership of firearms provides the necessary deterrent to what we as individuals consider tyranny by the government.
Ahhh. Okay. I do believe that the private ownership of firearms provides the necessary deterrent to what we as individuals consider tyranny by the government.
Again that makes no sense, because you are empowering citizens to either (a) act against a lawful government action; or (b) resort to violence when judicial recourse against an unlawful act is available. If you are advocating for the former, well, that's just domestic terrorism. If the latter, than it goes back to my question about the nurse in Utah (a question you never answered, by the way). If guns are the guardian against unlawful government acts, the nurse would have been perfectly justified in shooting the former police officer when faced with unlawful arrest. Is it your view that such a shooting would be justified?
I fail to see how encouraging people to violently attack agents of the government for subjectively perceived acts of tyranny betters society in any way, shape or form. To the contrary, it encourages vigilantism and domestic terrorism.
The idealistic belief that you may become the next Founding Father revolutionary is just that - idealistic, and impossibly so. The Founding Fathers fought against a Parliamentarian monarchy without any right or ability to affect the rule of law that governed them. As such, when confronted with laws they deemed tyrannical, they had no recourse (such as electing different Parliamentary representatives to represent their interests) other than violent insurrection. Americans, on the other hand, have that very power. So the "I am the next Founding Father" argument makes no sense, because it would only come into play in the incredibly unlikely event that the US Government converts itself to an actual dictatorship. The chances of that happening are so remote that promoting ubiquitous firearm ownership to guard against it would be like injecting cancer-causing chemicals into every American to guard against an alien invasion in the off-chance that those aliens were allergic to cancer.
In short, the "guard against tyranny" argument is bunk. Encouraging people to take up arms against their elected government to combat rules they subjectively perceive to be tyrannical is authorizing the citizenry to pick-and-choose which laws they like and which laws they do not like. That is not advocating for a more-free society, it is encouraging anarchy and the disregard for the rule of law.
Again that makes no sense, because you are empowering citizens to either (a) act against a lawful government action; or (b) resort to violence when judicial recourse against an unlawful act is available. If you are advocating for the former, well, that's just domestic terrorism. If the latter, than it goes back to my question about the nurse in Utah (a question you never answered, by the way). If guns are the guardian against unlawful government acts, the nurse would have been perfectly justified in shooting the former police officer when faced with unlawful arrest. Is it your view that such a shooting would be justified?
I fail to see how encouraging people to violently attack agents of the government for subjectively perceived acts of tyranny betters society in any way, shape or form. To the contrary, it encourages vigilantism and domestic terrorism.
The idealistic belief that you may become the next Founding Father revolutionary is just that - idealistic, and impossibly so. The Founding Fathers fought against a Parliamentarian monarchy without any right or ability to affect the rule of law that governed them. As such, when confronted with laws they deemed tyrannical, they had no recourse (such as electing different Parliamentary representatives to represent their interests) other than violent insurrection. Americans, on the other hand, have that very power. So the "I am the next Founding Father" argument makes no sense, because it would only come into play in the incredibly unlikely event that the US Government converts itself to an actual dictatorship. The chances of that happening are so remote that promoting ubiquitous firearm ownership to guard against it would be like injecting cancer-causing chemicals into every American to guard against an alien invasion in the off-chance that those aliens were allergic to cancer.
In short, the "guard against tyranny" argument is bunk. Encouraging people to take up arms against their elected government to combat rules they subjectively perceive to be tyrannical is authorizing the citizenry to pick-and-choose which laws they like and which laws they do not like. That is not advocating for a more-free society, it is encouraging anarchy and the disregard for the rule of law.
This country was founded on domestic terrorism. How do you think we got free from the UK?
This country was founded on domestic terrorism. How do you think we got free from the UK?
Did you miss the distinction between the situation in which the Founding Fathers found themselves (e.g., having no political or judicial recourse against oppressive rule) and the situation in which Americans find themselves today? Or was it just too convenient for you to ignore that critical point?
Again, the "guns protect me against tyranny" school of thought requires you to proscribe to one or more of the following beliefs:
(1) I am a violent anarchist. I wish to empower citizens to use deadly violence against police officers and other government agents if those citizens subjectively believe a lawful act by the government is tyrannical. Put differently, I do not believe in democratic, political consensus but would rather pick and choose what laws appeal to me and ignore the others;
(2) I am a vigilante. I wish to empower citizens to use violence against police officers and other government agents if those citizens subjectively believe an unlawful act by the government is taking place. I do not wish to resort to judicial process (the check against the government that the Founding Fathers created for this very purpose), but would rather take matters into my own hands;
(3) I am a lunatic preparing for the apocalypse. I believe that despite all of the checks and balances, Congress, the judiciary, and the entire election system in the US is doomed to be disbanded or destroyed, that a dictator will seize control of the armed forces, and that a new civil war is on the horizon. I must be ready to wage war against the largest, most sophisticated, and tactically advanced military in the world with my firearms when they try to murder all of their follow citizens.
Which are you?
Edit: There is actually a fourth belief system: "I am intellectually dishonest. I rely on this talking point about 'tyranny' without having really thought it through because it supports by position, even though it is not really justifiable."
I wonder how they have escaped having the occasional mentally ill person acting out, even on a small scale. If they have not escaped, I haven’t heard of it. Which leads me to my theory that the craving for media/internet attention feeds this current craze. I have a suspicion that the media in Switzerland is not as sensationalistic.
I didn't watch much TV/news there. 1) I'm not very fluent in Swiss French/Swiss German. 2) If i wasn't working I was traveling surrounding countries. But I cant recall the years living there that a shooting ever occurred or any violent acts made headline news, especially in the city I was living in (Geneva). I'm sure shootings and violence happen.
Yes, let's turn this country into a police state. Because that makes so much more sense than dealing with the root cause of gun violence.
We are being held hostage in this country by the gun lovers.
We protect banks and money with armed security, how much more should we do it with innocent lives with long futures ahead?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
