- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Pretty myopic argument. Many of them did not exist under Saddam...
Because he was a tyrant.
Pretty myopic argument. Many of them did not exist under Saddam...
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.
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.
Pretty myopic argument. ... and who ever said guns alone are a guarantee of resistance let alone victory? ...
So guns don't empower much?
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™
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.
The interesting part Pirate is that a significant majority of Americans understand the second amendment to be a citizens defense against governmental tyranny!
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.
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.
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.
I was never a constitutionally protected right in england. Do you even have a constitution. :2wave:
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Wow... that sounds pretty mean. And sounds like a very provocative made up stereotype by you...Mostly they just make cowardly people less afraid(but only slightly, they still live in fear), and people with small penises feel less inadequate.
Thanx for not blowin it USCon_It's a good thing, meant to be funny-it means you are dead on.
Nope; it musta been pre-me_Didn't you watch Diffrent Strokes?
Irrelevant and yes, along with with a thousand years of legal precedent.
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?!
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.
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.
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.
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...