• 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
PirateMk1 said:
Let me ask you this. Given a choice, what would you do? Would you choose to arm yourself?
Click to expand...

In what scenario? If it is resisting a tyrannical regime, I'm going to find more effective strategy for resistance than simply getting a gun. I may arm myself in the process, but it's not my primary concern.

For me the second amendment isn't about defending against tyranny.
Click to expand...

We're in agreement about that. :shrug:

Its about the daily visible enforcement of my rights. That is the main reason to carry for me. Self defense, tyranny are distant secondary considerations. For me the gun the knife their display is a political statement, which says **** with me at your peril. If I am armed or not it matters not to me, because wherever I go, I AM THE weapon everything and everybody in my environment are simply tools for me to manipulate for my and families defense as necessary. I don't need a gun, they are simply a political tool for me as well as a hobby.
Click to expand...

So you agree that guns only provide the illusion of empowerment. True empowerment only comes from one's choice to not relinquish their own power. The only authority others have over us is the authority which we choose to grant them.

I support the 2nd amendment. But doing so does not mean I have to hold self-delusional beliefs about how owning a gun = empowerment. If I require a gun to feel empowered, I cannot really be empowered because I'm trying to find power from outside of myself.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Let me ask you this. Given a choice, what would you do? Would you choose to arm yourself?

For me the second amendment isn't about defending against tyranny. Its about the daily visible enforcement of my rights. That is the main reason to carry for me. Self defense, tyranny are distant secondary considerations. For me the gun the knife their display is a political statement, which says **** with me at your peril. If I am armed or not it matters not to me, because wherever I go, I AM THE weapon everything and everybody in my environment are simply tools for me to manipulate for my and families defense as necessary. I don't need a gun, they are simply a political tool for me as well as a hobby.

I am water, I flow, I crash, I erode, I corrode, I break, I evaporate, I transform, I am everywhere, I am nowhere, I am water.
Click to expand...

Per the bolded, this should be interesting to you.

65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny

65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Reports™
 
Montecresto said:
Per the bolded, this should be interesting to you.

65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny

65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Reports™
Click to expand...

Not too particularly interesting. They are free to believe that and in the beginning it was true. Not so much any more. Perhaps collectively. Firearms do not really equal the ability to project power at least in a meaningful way that would deter a government. To deter the government you have to be able to hurt them enough that they must closely measure and weigh the benefit vs the cost of engagement.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Not too particularly interesting. They are free to believe that and in the beginning it was true. Not so much any more. Perhaps collectively. Firearms do not really equal the ability to project power at least in a meaningful way that would deter a government. To deter the government you have to be able to hurt them enough that they must closely measure and weigh the benefit vs the cost of engagement.
Click to expand...

The interesting part Pirate is that a significant majority of Americans understand the second amendment to be a citizens defense against governmental tyranny!
 
Montecresto said:
The interesting part Pirate is that a significant majority of Americans understand the second amendment to be a citizens defense against governmental tyranny!
Click to expand...

If you are making a point, do please make it. Otherwise I don't find that sentiment all that interesting especially because past history leads me to believe in all likelihood the citizenry will not in mass pick up arms and defy the government, despite the Bundy incident.
 
PirateMk1 said:
If you are making a point, do please make it. Otherwise I don't find that sentiment all that interesting especially because past history leads me to believe in all likelihood the citizenry will not in mass pick up arms and defy the government, despite the Bundy incident.
Click to expand...

The point, is clear. According to a Rasmussen Poll, 65% of Americans believe the second amendment is a citizens protection from tyranny. If you don't find that number interesting, fine. But I would have thought it would be far lower then that.
 
Montecresto said:
The point, is clear. According to a Rasmussen Poll, 65% of Americans believe the second amendment is a citizens protection from tyranny. If you don't find that number interesting, fine. But I would have thought it would be far lower then that.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but the point was not clear, hence why I asked. Good night.
 
Obvious answer....

I will say that much of the time, however, for the enthusiast, the firearm is largely another toy and a hobby. An enjoyable, interesting, and fulfilling hobby, but a hobby nonetheless.
 
It was there to ensure a reserve army was available should the tiny standing army be overrun by invaders. In much the way that England earlier had laws requiring weekly archery practise before Church on Sunday.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It was there to ensure a reserve army was available should the tiny standing army be overrun by invaders. In much the way that England earlier had laws requiring weekly archery practise before Church on Sunday.
Click to expand...

I was never a constitutionally protected right in england. Do you even have a constitution. :2wave:
 
Superfly said:
This exchange comes from one of my favorite movies:


Yeah, I think a lot of people feel that way. I think a lot of people would react completely differently if they didn't have a gun. I'm not pigeon-holing all gun owners like this, but I think that, for some people, owning a gun gives them this feeling that they can do anything, and can get away with anything.
Click to expand...

The word in bold is the key one here. You think that it gives us that feeling. And you're 100% wrong. In fact, when I carry, I am much more reserved than when I don't because of the simple fact that if I was to get in some stupid, heated argument over nothing and the other person happened to notice that I was carrying, they might feel like reporting me for brandishing, a charge that is difficult to defend. No thanks. I'll just steer clear of them instead. (Not that I tend to get in stupid arguments with strangers either way, but you get the point.)
 
Superfly said:
Yeah, I think a lot of people feel that way. I think a lot of people would react completely differently if they didn't have a gun. I'm not pigeon-holing all gun owners like this, but I think that, for some people, owning a gun gives them this feeling that they can do anything, and can get away with anything.
Click to expand...

LagerHead said:
The word in bold is the key one here. You think that it gives us that feeling. And you're 100% wrong. In fact, when I carry, I am much more reserved than when I don't because of the simple fact that if I was to get in some stupid, heated argument over nothing and the other person happened to notice that I was carrying, they might feel like reporting me for brandishing, a charge that is difficult to defend. No thanks. I'll just steer clear of them instead. (Not that I tend to get in stupid arguments with strangers either way, but you get the point.)
Click to expand...

I didn't say everybody. I said some people.
 
Tucker Case said:
Guns don't empower people, they do provide the illusion of empowerment for some people, though.

Look at this thread, for example. We have some people who truly believe that owning a gun would prevent them from being the victim of "tyranny" as though the playing field is akin to that which existed in 1776.

Newsflash, it's not. The founding fathers owning guns didn't win the revolutionary war, the fact that the British didn't really think it was worth the effort of sending enough troops and weapons across the ocean to stomp our faces into the ground is what won the war. It wasn't cost effective to win the war and the supply lines were pretty much unsustainable for the meager benefits it would have provided. Many Brits knew their "English brethren in the colonies" would still look to England as a patriarch of sorts. They were still going to want their tea. Not enough reward to warrant the costs of Iron fisted cotnrol.

Nowadays, ships don't use sails and the tyrants would be on their own home court. These days, you aren't going to overthrow a tyrannical government as a ragtag group of spunky rebels with guns. You would be crushed like the Brits would have crushed us in the 1770's had they actually felt it economically expedient to do so.
Click to expand...

I'd say Washington's spy ring had more to do with winning the war than insufficient British troops. The British military probably sent over what their strategists thought was necessary.
 
Redress said:
Mostly they just make cowardly people less afraid(but only slightly, they still live in fear), and people with small penises feel less inadequate.
Click to expand...
Wow... that sounds pretty mean. And sounds like a very provocative made up stereotype by you...

So I assume you are not a coward, and that is why you do not own a gun? You are not afraid of anything... or rather, you think there will never be anything you would be afraid of because something or someone else will always keep you protected? You have faith in your protection, and that makes you brave.
It's good to have faith in the good hearts of the people around you.
But I think this is a thought process of someone who has been severely sheltered most of their life and has never experienced the true reality and cruelty of the world.

I do not own a gun... because I can't afford one xD. I do not consider myself cowardly, nor do I have a small penis lol.
There is a difference between the brave and the stupid... the brave are scared, but choose to push on anyway. The stupid are not.

I'll throw out a Lion King quote for fun...that I think is relevant
Mufasa: Simba, I'm very disappointed in you.
Young Simba: I know.
Mufasa: You could have been killed! You deliberately disobeyed me! And what's worse, you put Nala in danger!
Young Simba: I was just trying to be brave like you.
Mufasa: Simba, I'm only brave when I have to be. Being brave doesn't mean you go looking for trouble.
Young Simba: But you're not scared of anything.
Mufasa: I was today.
Young Simba: You were?
Mufasa: Yes. I thought I might lose you.
Young Simba: Whoah. I guess even kings get scared, huh?
Mufasa: Mmm-hmm.
 
US Conservative said:
It's a good thing, meant to be funny-it means you are dead on.
Click to expand...
Thanx for not blowin it USCon_

So I guess I'm still officially, madly in like with you!

I knew you wouldn't let me down_ :nails

Didn't you watch Diffrent Strokes?
Click to expand...
Nope; it musta been pre-me_

But the kid kinda looks familiar?!
i_am_what_willis-base.png
 
Empirica said:
Thanx for not blowin it USCon_

So I guess I'm still officially, madly in like with you!

I knew you wouldn't let me down_ :nails

Nope; it musta been pre-me_

But the kid kinda looks familiar?!
i_am_what_willis-base.png
Click to expand...

You must be too young, Im guessing you are in your early to mid 20's. The glasses still work. ;)

And thats Gary Coleman, RIP. :(
 
celticwar17 said:
Wow... that sounds pretty mean. And sounds like a very provocative made up stereotype by you...

So I assume you are not a coward, and that is why you do not own a gun? You are not afraid of anything... or rather, you think there will never be anything you would be afraid of because something or someone else will always keep you protected? You have faith in your protection, and that makes you brave.
It's good to have faith in the good hearts of the people around you.
But I think this is a thought process of someone who has been severely sheltered most of their life and has never experienced the true reality and cruelty of the world.

I do not own a gun... because I can't afford one xD. I do not consider myself cowardly, nor do I have a small penis lol.
There is a difference between the brave and the stupid... the brave are scared, but choose to push on anyway. The stupid are not.

I'll throw out a Lion King quote for fun...that I think is relevant
Mufasa: Simba, I'm very disappointed in you.
Young Simba: I know.
Mufasa: You could have been killed! You deliberately disobeyed me! And what's worse, you put Nala in danger!
Young Simba: I was just trying to be brave like you.
Mufasa: Simba, I'm only brave when I have to be. Being brave doesn't mean you go looking for trouble.
Young Simba: But you're not scared of anything.
Mufasa: I was today.
Young Simba: You were?
Mufasa: Yes. I thought I might lose you.
Young Simba: Whoah. I guess even kings get scared, huh?
Mufasa: Mmm-hmm.
Click to expand...



Thank you. Possessing weapons in a world where there are armed thugs is merely prudent and rational... no fear or egotism need be involved at all.


The bottom line is, if someone with a weapon is trying to abuse you, your odds of successfully resisting are far greater if you are armed than if not. End of story.
 
Tucker Case said:
You can't be sufficiently armed to resist a tyrannical government in this country because our government, should it ever decide to become tyrannical, is always going to be armed significantly better than the resistance.

Only a true civil war, where the government splits fairly evenly and both sides take along the weaponry the government possesses, would allow a chance for victory from the "resistance" side.

In that case, it wouldn't be resistance to tyranny, because the side that is considered tyrannical would not have enough authority (due to the split) in order to actually be tyrannical. It would only become a tyrannical government if it actually wins the civil war.

But if the government made the shift to tyranny without splitting up, any armed resistance by the people would be futile due to the disproportion of armament.
Click to expand...

Yes because throughout the history of this globe, the power with superior numbers and firepower have always been the one that won haven't they? And there's never been any examples of a smaller forces challenging a larger one, let alone succeeding. Seriously, have you ever taken a single history class?

American said:
I'd say Washington's spy ring had more to do with winning the war than insufficient British troops. The British military probably sent over what their strategists thought was necessary.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that once France entered the conflict, the war went from a small regional conflict into a global conflict. France's military hit at British assets from North America, Africa, the Indies, and even at home. Even if they wanted to send more troops, the fact of the matter is that they couldn't afford too.
 
I'll say this, Police would certainly think a little more about busting into someone's house if they know they have a gun. And thanks to the ruling in Texas, if I cop breaks into the wrong home without announcing themselves, the homeowner has every right to shoot them. I'm sure they'll be careful to make sure their hitting the right home from now on...
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I'll say this, Police would certainly think a little more about busting into someone's house if they know they have a gun. And thanks to the ruling in Texas, if I cop breaks into the wrong home without announcing themselves, the homeowner has every right to shoot them. I'm sure they'll be careful to make sure their hitting the right home from now on...
Click to expand...

As they should be and generally are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom