• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do firearms empower people?

Do firearms empower people?

  • Total voters
    52
Unrepresented said:
I am certainly allowed to doubt the veracity of a claim that apparently is found to be highly skeptical according to the many other wikipedia readers and editors.

They were authoritarian dictators. You seem to be unclear on the concept of how a four point political compass works. There are separate axis for authoritarian and economic views.

axeswithnames.gif


The similarity between Stalin and Hitler is that they're both heavily authoritarian and citizens can suffer under authoritarian rule. That's the common denominator, not economic distribution. Socialism doesn't require an authoritarian dictatorship.

Ghandi is closer to where I'd argue that socialism is supposed to land on the compass than Stalin.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have figured out that they had a propensity to tyranny (authoritarianism, here). Thats where Marxists end up.

Incidentally years ago I took a political spectrum test and landed right where Friedman is, Im cool with that.
 
German guy said:
I'm annoyed by poll questions that leave no options between either "yes" or "no". Most matters aren't that simple.

Such as this, IMO. Do guns empower people? It really depends on the situation. Those who get a gun pointed at their head are usually not empowered, for example.

Someone said above that it empowers people, and depending if these people are up for something good or bad, the result is either good or bad. That's well put, IMO.

This "preventing tyranny" rhetoric is total BS. ISIS has guns, does it prevent tyranny? Al Qaida has guns, does that prevent tyranny? The East-Ukrainian separatists have guns, does that prevent tyranny? No, exactly the opposite, actually. Guns only prevent tyranny when those who are follow liberal/enlightened ideology have guns. When people with a different ideology have guns, guns support tyranny.

In Germany's Weimar Republic (1919-1933), a major problem was that the government was much more freedom loving than a majority of the people. The numerous monarchists had guns, the commies had guns, the Nazis had guns, and they all shot each other on the streets and all shot on the republicans and democrats. And the republican, freedom-loving government was too weak to crack down on the freedom-hating people.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are grasping the concept that inanimate objects must be used by a person, and that they can be used for good or bad.
 
instagramsci said:
You know a lot of people who died starved and died from things they may have recovered from if not for being starved

I'm not here to be an apologist for Stalin. I'm not a Stalin fan. The thing is people want to simplify what happened so they can point out communists and say "hey look how evil they are let's kill them" while they completely ignore what capitalism and neoliberalism have done to at least a similar (if not higher) amount of people
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are being an apologist. Stalin deliberately starved entire ethnic groups to death. It was entirely intentional.
 
Goshin said:
Anyway you slice it, it comes down to a fundamental truth....


If someone with a gun wishes to abuse you (for whatever reason, or under whatever color of abused authority), you have a much better chance to resist him if you are also armed, than if you are not.


This is the fundamental truth, whether you love guns or hate them.


Some people react to this truth by arming themselves. Some react by trying to disarm everyone. Neither reaction is 100% effective, but I prefer the former to the latter... since the latter tends only to disarm the law-abiding citizen, and not the thug or the oppressor.
Click to expand...

You are/where a cop correct? Was it a common occurrence to come across a crime being committed?
 
US Conservative said:
Sounds like you have figured out that they had a propensity to tyranny (authoritarianism, here). Thats where Marxists end up.

Incidentally years ago I took a political spectrum test and landed right where Friedman is, Im cool with that.
Click to expand...
Stalin was more leftist than Hitler, who economically was moderate to right leaning.

Again. The issue isn't economics, it's dictators.
 
US Conservative said:
Sounds like you are grasping the concept that inanimate objects must be used by a person, and that they can be used for good or bad.
Click to expand...

Yep. Unlike the people who argue along the line that "guns are goooooood", or "guns prevent tyranny".
 
Unrepresented said:
Bread and circuses win out most of the time over quality long term goals.
Click to expand...

Amongst the failings of Marxism is that is presumes to determine what these long term goals are, when there is no way something as complex as not just the economy but the individuals personal reasons can be aligned in such a way. This is one of the reasons why it ends up authoritarian.

We get "bunny marxists" (the cute, cuddly kind the American left presents as the standard) in nations like Sweden but they are an artifact-protected from "wolf marxists" by its capitalist benefactors, and unable to even maintain its population.

It fails on so many levels.
 
Unrepresented said:
Stalin was more leftist than Hitler, who economically was moderate to right leaning.

Again. The issue isn't economics, it's dictators.
Click to expand...

Dictators don't magically appear, they often have to work through a system to get where they are, and there are certain systems that have a propensity for them. Guess who.
 
US Conservative said:
Lets not dismiss who they thought they were. Marxism leads to hell on earth, just admit it.
Click to expand...

What they thought they were is irrelevant to what they were. And authoritarianism leads to hell on earth, just admit it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What they thought they were is irrelevant to what they were. And authoritarianism leads to hell on earth, just admit it.
Click to expand...

Its not irrelevant because at the very least its what steered them into the path they end up on. There is something about marxism that leads people to end up there.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Stifles individual creativity and growth? In general, I'd agree with that.
Click to expand...

A system where all of your needs are presented as being provided by the state, where individual merit and achievement is stifled. It removes just a bit of the spark of life.

Theres only one creature on earth with all its needs provided for-and thats a captive animal.
 
US Conservative said:
Its not irrelevant because at the very least its what steered them into the path they end up on. There is something about marxism that leads people to end up there.
Click to expand...

No, it is entirely irrelevant. If I call a cat a dog, it's still a cat. And the issue isn't Marxism. Nothing wrong with the ideology as a concept. The problem is human nature makes it untenable. Humans always create a hierarchy. Marxism is directly in conflict with that.
 
US Conservative said:
A system where all of your needs are presented as being provided by the state, where individual merit and achievement is stifled. It removes just a bit of the spark of life.

Theres only one creature on earth with all its needs provided for-and thats a captive animal.
Click to expand...

You've just described why Marxism doesn't work... human nature... and why it doesn't exist and instead always transforms into authoritarianism... the captive animal.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, it is entirely irrelevant. If I call a cat a dog, it's still a cat. And the issue isn't Marxism. Nothing wrong with the ideology as a concept. The problem is human nature makes it untenable. Humans always create a hierarchy. Marxism is directly in conflict with that.
Click to expand...

Not really. Its like the FACT that there is something about radical islam that leads people to kill innocents in horrible ways.

Its ok to note the obvious association.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, it is entirely irrelevant. If I call a cat a dog, it's still a cat. And the issue isn't Marxism. Nothing wrong with the ideology as a concept. The problem is human nature makes it untenable. Humans always create a hierarchy. Marxism is directly in conflict with that.
Click to expand...

You are looking at the what and Im looking at the why.
 
US Conservative said:
The specific stat was that guns are at least as likely to be used for lawful defense as for crime. And since prevented crime often isn't reported its probably much higher.
Click to expand...
The actual stats are inconclusive. It would be nice if they weren't but such is life.

Depending on the survey used, DGUs are either much higher, or much lower, than crimes involving a gun.
 
US Conservative said:
Amongst the failings of Marxism is that is presumes to determine what these long term goals are, when there is no way something as complex as not just the economy but the individuals personal reasons can be aligned in such a way. This is one of the reasons why it ends up authoritarian.

We get "bunny marxists" (the cute, cuddly kind the American left presents as the standard) in nations like Sweden but they are an artifact-protected from "wolf marxists" by its capitalist benefactors, and unable to even maintain its population.

It fails on so many levels.
Click to expand...

Greater economic and social parity is
the goal. That's not particularly a greater unachievable notion that holding it self-evident that all men are created equal and creating a political system around that.


US Conservative said:
Dictators don't magically appear, they often have to work through a system to get where they are, and there are certain systems that have a propensity.
Click to expand...
Authoritarian systems do. They were both authoritarian. Hitler wasn't a marxist. He was closer to Margaret Thatcher than Stalin. She was slightly less authoritarian and (arguably) less evil.
 
iangb said:
The actual stats are inconclusive. It would be nice if they weren't but such is life.

Depending on the survey used, DGUs are either much higher, or much lower, than crimes involving a gun.
Click to expand...

No they aren't inconclusive. Guns protect innocent Americans. So hands off or it wont end well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom