13 ms·

John Oliver had a great piece on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks In the US, where the constitutio

John Oliver had a great piece on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks In the US, where the constitution expressly prohibits it: that your property is seized w/o due process is complete and utter garbage. By no means am I a right-wing/vigilante militia supporter, but this type of behavior from the police makes me support having a heavily armed citizenry.

NhanH 11y ago
> By no means am I a right-wing/vigilante militia supporter, but this type of behavior from the police makes me support having a heavily armed citizenry. Do you mind elaborate how firearm would help with combating civil forfeiture?
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  More dead police officers, and a lesser incentive for the police to rob the commoners, most likely. EDIT: To the multitude of downvoters and angry replies: I didn't say I agreed! I'm just saying where these arguments usually logically end up.
  - cdash 11y ago
    Of course, more guns does not bring that about but the willingness to kill and rebel against the government by a major part of the population.
  - fuzzywalrus 11y ago
    ... which leads more militarized policing.
  - TallGuyShort 11y ago
    Which doesn't work until we get to the point of all-out civil rebellion. The US has a heavily armed citizenry now and this is obviously happening. And drawing a weapon on a police officer will end badly no matter what the cop was doing. And that's not for entirely unreasonable reasons.
  - tehwalrus 11y ago
    You mean more funding for swat teams and heavier militarisation to defend themselves? Which is the only way such a move would be politically spun in this universe.
    - samstave 11y ago
      And this is the core of the problem!!!
  - r00fus 11y ago
    You're being downvoted you because what you propose is a self-defeating policy - those who gun down cops are enemy #1 and remove themselves from the equation pretty quickly.
    - sarciszewski 11y ago
      > because what you propose is a self-defeating policy Once again, I'm not proposing this. I'm answering a question with the honest logical conclusion that some peoples' worldviews take them to.
- wahsd 11y ago
  It's more of a hedge in case all these ridiculous situations just go off the deep end altogether.
- adventured 11y ago
  If the police continue to escalate their militarization, and continue to ramp up their asset thievery - let's say for illustration purposes here - to a dramatically greater degree. What other choice would the population have than to defend themselves against that kind of extreme assault on their liberty and property by what would be an obviously hostile, violent and radically unconstitutional force? The police would become little more than armed bandits at that point, modern pirates. It seems like an outlandish scenario to me, but it may not be if the police asset theft continues to soar as it has been. How about if it's ten times larger ten years from now? Latin America has had plenty of this going on, scenarios where the police have become bandits that plunder the population in numerous ways.
  - manachar 11y ago
    The police operate at the will of the people. They are as heavily armed as they are because the political process highly rewards "tough-on-crime" politicians. Maybe instead of buying guns we should invest more of our time and resources into the political process.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - cglace 11y ago
      I thought police were heavily armed for two reasons: the war on drugs and the programs put in place post 9/11.
    - stevendhansen 11y ago
      The events of the last century have all but proven, in my mind, that the political process can do very little to change the political process.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  We'll keep that to ourselves. If you need a touchy-feely PC-approved reason why civil forfeiture leads to a more-armed populace, try this: Armed people don't need the police for immediate physical security. Unarmed people might need police for that (ignoring for a moment the fact police are actually terrible at that particular task), but because of civil forfeiture (among other reasons) they are reluctant to involve police. Therefore civil forfeiture makes unarmed people less secure, theoretically. [EDIT:] In case I wasn't clear, I'm saying: civil forfeiture -> armed populace I'm not saying: armed populace -> less civil forfeiture
  - DanBC 11y ago
    You have a heavily armed population (the US has more guns per capita than anywhere else) and you still have terrible police.
    - Ao7bei3s 11y ago
      ...and less safety than in countries with better gun control.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      Yes we do have terrible police. Gun ownership doesn't change that, but it does mean you don't have to call the police until there are corpses to be collected. That's only the immediate benefit, because the likelihood of armed resistance to crime is a strong deterrent in the first place.
  - richmarr 11y ago
    > Armed people don't need the police for immediate physical security That seems contrary to evidence, surely. Looking at stats for residential shootings: "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/
    - 11y ago
- sneak 11y ago
  Widespread private firearm ownership, known to the police, cause police to be more respectful when interacting with the public.
- balls187 11y ago
  If the the police believed that the average American is well armed and capable of defending their rights, that would change how Police interact with them, reducing the number of bullshit enforcements, such as civil forfeitures.
  - krapp 11y ago
    Those police do believe the average American is possibly well armed.. they live in the same country as everyone else and know what the Second Amendment is. Why do you think they have backup and guns at the ready every time they make a traffic stop? Why is violence an effective means of coercion by the common citizen, but an unacceptable means of coercion by the state? Surely, if fearing for their lives would keep the police honest, having the people fear for their lives would keep them honest and law abiding as well?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    No, it wouldn't. Heck, firearms are a not-infrequent subject of civil forfeiture, so clearly people having firearms doesn't discourage the government from applying forfeiture.
api 11y ago
IMHO today cryptography and security are far more important and relevant than physical arms. This sort of thing is why "I have nothing to hide" is not a legitimate justification for mass surveillance. Think of the abuse potential when dragnet surveillance is combined with machine learning and economic incentives for asset seizure. I can think of quite a few... umm... entrepreneurial things that might be done.
- balls187 11y ago
  Agreed, but security and cryptography won't protect you from the police claiming "You smell like weed." and then seizing your property.
snsr 11y ago
It's probably worth noting that you can largely thank Ronald Reagan and his handlers for this legislation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Crime_Control_Act_of_1984 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Crime_Control_...
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  And still, Ronald Reagan is one of the most popular presidents of the US in the last 100 years.
  - nmlkfnelkfnew 11y ago
    Perhaps to people that guzzle talk radio whatever News Corp puts out. But to anyone else? Average at best.
  - quicklyfrozen 11y ago
    You have to remember what the country was like at the end of Carter's term to understand why he's so popular.
- DrScump 11y ago
  you can largely thank Ronald Reagan and his handlers for this legislation except that the Democrats had solid control of the House, including control of every committee that legislation navigated.
PythonicAlpha 11y ago
The Prohibition of the state grabbing the possession of innocent people dates back to the Magna Carta and thus to the foundations of the legal systems of our civilization. This practice simply is breaking the civil pact that holds together our countries.
adekok 11y ago
"The weapons shops of Isher" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shops_of_Isher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shops_of_Isher) are good in theory. They aren't very practical, though.
manachar 11y ago
It does go through a process, which at this point is considered constitutional, or more properly worded, has yet to be ruled unconstitutional in court. Civil forfeiture was a highly successful tool to combat organized crime and grew enormously in the 80s with Reagan's odious war on drugs. It basically solves the problem of illicitly used money being able to free people the government wanted wanted to stop. As a tool for dismantling organized crime, it was effective, useful, and generally seemed basically fair and as such seemed to survive court review. Then came the war on drugs and a dose of right-wing anti-tax thinking. "It's now possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-financed prison after being arrested by agents driving a forfeiture-provided automobile while working in a forfeiture-funded sting operation." — Reagan attorney general Richard Thornburgh in 1989. It was specifically designed to help fund agencies in a way that replaced tax revenue. Starting at roughly this same time period most government agencies at all levels became cash-strapped in various ways. This meant some agencies have turned to civil forfeiture to create revenue. It's clearly a bad incentive and needs to be reined in and reformulated to ensure rights are being respected. BTW, a heavily armed citizenry is precisely why local police departments advocate for more and more militarized equipment. They'll call them gang members and drug dealers, but they are heavily armed citizenry nonetheless. Armed citizens won't solve any part of this problem.
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  Even when it was successful for some things ... when it hurts innocent people, the state has to find other tools to hunt down criminals. You can't simply drop an atomic bomb on NYC -- and justify it, by saying you killed at least 100,000 criminals ...
  - manachar 11y ago
    I'm not sold that civil forfeiture is an atomic bomb. It's more like guns in the hands of police. It's a very dangerous tool in the hands of people who are charged with achieving something that occasionally needs dangerous tools to solve. Guns have obviously led to killing innocents by police, and I'd like that number to go down. Heck, I'd like most police officers to not carry guns most of the time, leaving guns to SWAT teams that can be called in when needed. In other words, I want the dangerous tool used effectively in a manner that respects everyone's rights. Same with civil forfeiture. It's clearly being used in an abusive fashion. Innocents are losing money and property to help pay for police. It blows my mind that it's being used this way and needs to be reformed. To me it would make sense to hold the property in some form of escrow until the finding of guilt or innocence, essentially freezing assets.
timonovici 11y ago
How would heavily armed citizenry help solve the problem? Are you going to put a hole in the head of the officer who takes your cash out of your car? Won't that lead to anarchy or civil war, eventually? Maybe...consider changing the law, eh?
- littletimmy 11y ago
  How will it lead to total civil war? All it will lead to is the police stops taking people's property without a court order or they risk getting shot.
  - timonovici 11y ago
    That's a rather naive way of looking at the outcome. For one, do you really think a someone with the training, experience, and exposure violence of a cop could be outmatched by you? Second, the statement above didn't say much about requiring a warrant to take people's property - how do you get to USA v2, where that law is in place? Do you shoot enough cops, so they would change the law? What kind of wild-west mentality dwells around there, anyway? How about writing a petition? How about sending (e)mails to your congressmen, or whatever people with that kind of authority you have in US?
    - Grishnakh 11y ago
      >For one, do you really think a someone with the training, experience, and exposure violence of a cop could be outmatched by you? Sure, why not? Most cops don't train that much with their weapons, and there's a bunch of crazy rednecks out there who train constantly with various firearms. I'll put my money on the gun nuts against the cops. Check out some YouTube videos by guys at pistol ranges. Also, cops only train at standard ranges, where you stand still and shoot at a non-moving target, and don't generally do combat training. Face it, cops aren't soldiers; they're just thugs with guns, and most are about as skilled with guns as your average ghetto thug.
      - timonovici 11y ago
pstuart 11y ago
Weapons aren't necessary. Ending the War On Drugs would remove the prime reasoning for this larceny. Bonus points: less people dying and going to jail, less corruption, etc.
rdtsc 11y ago
> makes me support having a heavily armed citizenry.' Well that's good for the police because now they have good reason to roll in with their SWAT wagon and get the "tactical" gear out and play GI Joe.
rayiner 11y ago
The wrinkle is that the seizure of contraband has never been understood to be a seizure of property without due process, dating back to the First Congress. I think civil forfeiture is definitely bad. But it's debatable whether it's unconstitutional.
magicmu 11y ago
Interesting that militant opposition to the police is associated with the right-wing; not trying to nitpick or condemn, in Ferguson that was absolutely true. Here in NYC it's still not, though, and generally I feel like resistance to armed government forces has generally been more left-aligned.
- yarou 11y ago
  Sure. Groups like the Black Panthers and various left-aligned groups tend to resist "armed government forces". But, the counterexample to your narrative are the various militias that are slightly racist and espouse right-wing rhetoric. Sometimes adults like to dress up in black shirts and carry weapons around, regardless of what political affiliation they have.
whybroke 11y ago
Ok, how about we set up a fund to give an AK47 and 1000 rounds of ammo to every homeless person in the country. That people seriously consider more guns to be a solution to anything let alone this problem shows the profound level of insane indoctrination and delusion in the country more than anything else.
- gozur88 11y ago
  >That people seriously consider more guns to be a solution to anything let alone this problem shows the profound level of insane indoctrination and delusion in the country more than anything else. I'm going to jot that sentence down in my "how to make friends and influence people" notebook.
  - whybroke 11y ago
    >...influence people... Is there some possibility of convincing a gun rights advocate that he is wrong? Only as much as there is to convince a climate change denier or creationist they are wrong. So for all three I'm afraid the above adjectives are accurate. I am only guilty of the sin of posting ridicule rather than psychotherapy.
    - gozur88 11y ago
      >Is there some possibility of convincing a gun rights advocate that he is wrong? When you use that kind of rhetoric there's no possibility of common ground. People who believe in gun rights, as I do, used to be much more open to restrictions on the margins - things like magazine size restrictions, say, or background checks. But there's no better way to engender intransigence than to ridicule someone without even attempting state your own position. Given the shift in public opinion toward gun rights, you're really just marginalizing yourself and your co-restrictionists.
      - whybroke 11y ago
        Is the gun control position unknown? It's the same as has been recited ad nuasum for 50 years: there is no right to bear arms in the same way as speech or religion and increased availability of firearms doesn't reduce violence. Only one portion of one country one earth seems to think otherwise, amounting to roughly 1% of mankind. If two generations of discourse has had no effect then certainly nothing I could ever post will change even one member of that 1% any more than I could change a creationist's view which has been demonstrably invalid 150 years now. But I might challenge a gun advocate's consistency this way though: why not establish a charity to hand out guns to poor inner city kids so as to reduce crime in those areas or at least give them too the opportunity to exercise that alleged fundamental human right; gun ownership?

NhanH 11y ago

> By no means am I a right-wing/vigilante militia supporter, but this type of behavior from the police makes me support having a heavily armed citizenry. Do you mind elaborate how firearm would help with combating civil forfeiture?

sarciszewski 11y ago
More dead police officers, and a lesser incentive for the police to rob the commoners, most likely. EDIT: To the multitude of downvoters and angry replies: I didn't say I agreed! I'm just saying where these arguments usually logically end up.
- cdash 11y ago
  Of course, more guns does not bring that about but the willingness to kill and rebel against the government by a major part of the population.
- fuzzywalrus 11y ago
  ... which leads more militarized policing.
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  Which doesn't work until we get to the point of all-out civil rebellion. The US has a heavily armed citizenry now and this is obviously happening. And drawing a weapon on a police officer will end badly no matter what the cop was doing. And that's not for entirely unreasonable reasons.
- tehwalrus 11y ago
  You mean more funding for swat teams and heavier militarisation to defend themselves? Which is the only way such a move would be politically spun in this universe.
  - samstave 11y ago
    And this is the core of the problem!!!
- r00fus 11y ago
  You're being downvoted you because what you propose is a self-defeating policy - those who gun down cops are enemy #1 and remove themselves from the equation pretty quickly.
  - sarciszewski 11y ago
    > because what you propose is a self-defeating policy Once again, I'm not proposing this. I'm answering a question with the honest logical conclusion that some peoples' worldviews take them to.
wahsd 11y ago
It's more of a hedge in case all these ridiculous situations just go off the deep end altogether.
adventured 11y ago
If the police continue to escalate their militarization, and continue to ramp up their asset thievery - let's say for illustration purposes here - to a dramatically greater degree. What other choice would the population have than to defend themselves against that kind of extreme assault on their liberty and property by what would be an obviously hostile, violent and radically unconstitutional force? The police would become little more than armed bandits at that point, modern pirates. It seems like an outlandish scenario to me, but it may not be if the police asset theft continues to soar as it has been. How about if it's ten times larger ten years from now? Latin America has had plenty of this going on, scenarios where the police have become bandits that plunder the population in numerous ways.
- manachar 11y ago
  The police operate at the will of the people. They are as heavily armed as they are because the political process highly rewards "tough-on-crime" politicians. Maybe instead of buying guns we should invest more of our time and resources into the political process.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - cglace 11y ago
    I thought police were heavily armed for two reasons: the war on drugs and the programs put in place post 9/11.
  - stevendhansen 11y ago
    The events of the last century have all but proven, in my mind, that the political process can do very little to change the political process.
jessaustin 11y ago
We'll keep that to ourselves. If you need a touchy-feely PC-approved reason why civil forfeiture leads to a more-armed populace, try this: Armed people don't need the police for immediate physical security. Unarmed people might need police for that (ignoring for a moment the fact police are actually terrible at that particular task), but because of civil forfeiture (among other reasons) they are reluctant to involve police. Therefore civil forfeiture makes unarmed people less secure, theoretically. [EDIT:] In case I wasn't clear, I'm saying: civil forfeiture -> armed populace I'm not saying: armed populace -> less civil forfeiture
- DanBC 11y ago
  You have a heavily armed population (the US has more guns per capita than anywhere else) and you still have terrible police.
  - Ao7bei3s 11y ago
    ...and less safety than in countries with better gun control.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Yes we do have terrible police. Gun ownership doesn't change that, but it does mean you don't have to call the police until there are corpses to be collected. That's only the immediate benefit, because the likelihood of armed resistance to crime is a strong deterrent in the first place.
- richmarr 11y ago
  > Armed people don't need the police for immediate physical security That seems contrary to evidence, surely. Looking at stats for residential shootings: "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/
  - 11y ago
sneak 11y ago
Widespread private firearm ownership, known to the police, cause police to be more respectful when interacting with the public.
balls187 11y ago
If the the police believed that the average American is well armed and capable of defending their rights, that would change how Police interact with them, reducing the number of bullshit enforcements, such as civil forfeitures.
- krapp 11y ago
  Those police do believe the average American is possibly well armed.. they live in the same country as everyone else and know what the Second Amendment is. Why do you think they have backup and guns at the ready every time they make a traffic stop? Why is violence an effective means of coercion by the common citizen, but an unacceptable means of coercion by the state? Surely, if fearing for their lives would keep the police honest, having the people fear for their lives would keep them honest and law abiding as well?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  No, it wouldn't. Heck, firearms are a not-infrequent subject of civil forfeiture, so clearly people having firearms doesn't discourage the government from applying forfeiture.

api 11y ago

IMHO today cryptography and security are far more important and relevant than physical arms. This sort of thing is why "I have nothing to hide" is not a legitimate justification for mass surveillance. Think of the abuse potential when dragnet surveillance is combined with machine learning and economic incentives for asset seizure. I can think of quite a few... umm... entrepreneurial things that might be done.

balls187 11y ago
Agreed, but security and cryptography won't protect you from the police claiming "You smell like weed." and then seizing your property.

snsr 11y ago

It's probably worth noting that you can largely thank Ronald Reagan and his handlers for this legislation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Crime_Control_Act_of_1984 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Crime_Control_...

PythonicAlpha 11y ago
And still, Ronald Reagan is one of the most popular presidents of the US in the last 100 years.
- nmlkfnelkfnew 11y ago
  Perhaps to people that guzzle talk radio whatever News Corp puts out. But to anyone else? Average at best.
- quicklyfrozen 11y ago
  You have to remember what the country was like at the end of Carter's term to understand why he's so popular.
DrScump 11y ago
you can largely thank Ronald Reagan and his handlers for this legislation except that the Democrats had solid control of the House, including control of every committee that legislation navigated.

PythonicAlpha 11y ago

The Prohibition of the state grabbing the possession of innocent people dates back to the Magna Carta and thus to the foundations of the legal systems of our civilization. This practice simply is breaking the civil pact that holds together our countries.

adekok 11y ago

"The weapons shops of Isher" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shops_of_Isher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shops_of_Isher) are good in theory. They aren't very practical, though.

manachar 11y ago

It does go through a process, which at this point is considered constitutional, or more properly worded, has yet to be ruled unconstitutional in court. Civil forfeiture was a highly successful tool to combat organized crime and grew enormously in the 80s with Reagan's odious war on drugs. It basically solves the problem of illicitly used money being able to free people the government wanted wanted to stop. As a tool for dismantling organized crime, it was effective, useful, and generally seemed basically fair and as such seemed to survive court review. Then came the war on drugs and a dose of right-wing anti-tax thinking. "It's now possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-financed prison after being arrested by agents driving a forfeiture-provided automobile while working in a forfeiture-funded sting operation." — Reagan attorney general Richard Thornburgh in 1989. It was specifically designed to help fund agencies in a way that replaced tax revenue. Starting at roughly this same time period most government agencies at all levels became cash-strapped in various ways. This meant some agencies have turned to civil forfeiture to create revenue. It's clearly a bad incentive and needs to be reined in and reformulated to ensure rights are being respected. BTW, a heavily armed citizenry is precisely why local police departments advocate for more and more militarized equipment. They'll call them gang members and drug dealers, but they are heavily armed citizenry nonetheless. Armed citizens won't solve any part of this problem.

PythonicAlpha 11y ago
Even when it was successful for some things ... when it hurts innocent people, the state has to find other tools to hunt down criminals. You can't simply drop an atomic bomb on NYC -- and justify it, by saying you killed at least 100,000 criminals ...
- manachar 11y ago
  I'm not sold that civil forfeiture is an atomic bomb. It's more like guns in the hands of police. It's a very dangerous tool in the hands of people who are charged with achieving something that occasionally needs dangerous tools to solve. Guns have obviously led to killing innocents by police, and I'd like that number to go down. Heck, I'd like most police officers to not carry guns most of the time, leaving guns to SWAT teams that can be called in when needed. In other words, I want the dangerous tool used effectively in a manner that respects everyone's rights. Same with civil forfeiture. It's clearly being used in an abusive fashion. Innocents are losing money and property to help pay for police. It blows my mind that it's being used this way and needs to be reformed. To me it would make sense to hold the property in some form of escrow until the finding of guilt or innocence, essentially freezing assets.

timonovici 11y ago

How would heavily armed citizenry help solve the problem? Are you going to put a hole in the head of the officer who takes your cash out of your car? Won't that lead to anarchy or civil war, eventually? Maybe...consider changing the law, eh?

littletimmy 11y ago
How will it lead to total civil war? All it will lead to is the police stops taking people's property without a court order or they risk getting shot.
- timonovici 11y ago
  That's a rather naive way of looking at the outcome. For one, do you really think a someone with the training, experience, and exposure violence of a cop could be outmatched by you? Second, the statement above didn't say much about requiring a warrant to take people's property - how do you get to USA v2, where that law is in place? Do you shoot enough cops, so they would change the law? What kind of wild-west mentality dwells around there, anyway? How about writing a petition? How about sending (e)mails to your congressmen, or whatever people with that kind of authority you have in US?
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
    >For one, do you really think a someone with the training, experience, and exposure violence of a cop could be outmatched by you? Sure, why not? Most cops don't train that much with their weapons, and there's a bunch of crazy rednecks out there who train constantly with various firearms. I'll put my money on the gun nuts against the cops. Check out some YouTube videos by guys at pistol ranges. Also, cops only train at standard ranges, where you stand still and shoot at a non-moving target, and don't generally do combat training. Face it, cops aren't soldiers; they're just thugs with guns, and most are about as skilled with guns as your average ghetto thug.
    - timonovici 11y ago

pstuart 11y ago

Weapons aren't necessary. Ending the War On Drugs would remove the prime reasoning for this larceny. Bonus points: less people dying and going to jail, less corruption, etc.

rdtsc 11y ago

> makes me support having a heavily armed citizenry.' Well that's good for the police because now they have good reason to roll in with their SWAT wagon and get the "tactical" gear out and play GI Joe.

rayiner 11y ago

The wrinkle is that the seizure of contraband has never been understood to be a seizure of property without due process, dating back to the First Congress. I think civil forfeiture is definitely bad. But it's debatable whether it's unconstitutional.

magicmu 11y ago

Interesting that militant opposition to the police is associated with the right-wing; not trying to nitpick or condemn, in Ferguson that was absolutely true. Here in NYC it's still not, though, and generally I feel like resistance to armed government forces has generally been more left-aligned.

yarou 11y ago
Sure. Groups like the Black Panthers and various left-aligned groups tend to resist "armed government forces". But, the counterexample to your narrative are the various militias that are slightly racist and espouse right-wing rhetoric. Sometimes adults like to dress up in black shirts and carry weapons around, regardless of what political affiliation they have.

whybroke 11y ago

Ok, how about we set up a fund to give an AK47 and 1000 rounds of ammo to every homeless person in the country. That people seriously consider more guns to be a solution to anything let alone this problem shows the profound level of insane indoctrination and delusion in the country more than anything else.

gozur88 11y ago
>That people seriously consider more guns to be a solution to anything let alone this problem shows the profound level of insane indoctrination and delusion in the country more than anything else. I'm going to jot that sentence down in my "how to make friends and influence people" notebook.
- whybroke 11y ago
  >...influence people... Is there some possibility of convincing a gun rights advocate that he is wrong? Only as much as there is to convince a climate change denier or creationist they are wrong. So for all three I'm afraid the above adjectives are accurate. I am only guilty of the sin of posting ridicule rather than psychotherapy.
  - gozur88 11y ago
    >Is there some possibility of convincing a gun rights advocate that he is wrong? When you use that kind of rhetoric there's no possibility of common ground. People who believe in gun rights, as I do, used to be much more open to restrictions on the margins - things like magazine size restrictions, say, or background checks. But there's no better way to engender intransigence than to ridicule someone without even attempting state your own position. Given the shift in public opinion toward gun rights, you're really just marginalizing yourself and your co-restrictionists.
    - whybroke 11y ago
      Is the gun control position unknown? It's the same as has been recited ad nuasum for 50 years: there is no right to bear arms in the same way as speech or religion and increased availability of firearms doesn't reduce violence. Only one portion of one country one earth seems to think otherwise, amounting to roughly 1% of mankind. If two generations of discourse has had no effect then certainly nothing I could ever post will change even one member of that 1% any more than I could change a creationist's view which has been demonstrably invalid 150 years now. But I might challenge a gun advocate's consistency this way though: why not establish a charity to hand out guns to poor inner city kids so as to reduce crime in those areas or at least give them too the opportunity to exercise that alleged fundamental human right; gun ownership?