5 ms·

> as a populous is armed it can strike fear in the government. Or it can shoot up a pre-school. Only one of these things actually happens outside of adolescen

> as a populous is armed it can strike fear in the government. Or it can shoot up a pre-school. Only one of these things actually happens outside of adolescent power fantasies.

flagfeedingusa 8y ago
Please provide a source of all the preschools that have been shot up in america.
lettergram 8y ago
I actually provided an example where an armed populous did strike fear into the government. The IRA were targeting MPs and fairly quickly after that there were good Friday agreement discussions. There are counter examples to every case, but my point was the Australian government can do what it wants because it's populous let's them.
tossaccount123 8y ago
Afghanistan and Vietnam would love to speak to you. Think about all the heat Obama got for drone strikes in the middle east and now imagine what would happen if they tried to do that in the United States? Factor in that close to 90% of infantry and special forces are either conservative or libertarian. US government is helpless against its citizens as long as they are armed
nate_meurer 8y ago
So, had you lived at the time of the American Revolution, do you imagine yourself among the pretentious loyalists accusing the founding fathers of "adolescent power fantasies"?
- craigsmansion 8y ago
  Surprisingly, I have not lived at the time of the American Revolution. Neither have you. Who we are contemporary with are the parents of a lot of dead kids; maybe you should explain to them the necessity of guns to protect them from harm. But keep on living in the past. If events like Sandy Hooks can't change your collective opinion, I doubt that anything will. It's all on your hands, you proud all-american weekend warriors.
  - nyolfen 8y ago
    we also have every country the US has gone to war with in half a century
  - nate_meurer 8y ago
    > Surprisingly, I have not lived at the time of the American Revolution. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking you to imagine, or in other words, pretend for the sake of argument, that you lived at that time, and then ask yourself whether you'd join the loyalists in calling for the colonists to be disarmed. Does that make sense? If you cannot understand why many Americans are unwilling to discard a right that was fundamental to the very existence of their nation, then you'll never be able to debate this topic productively. > maybe you should explain to them the necessity of guns to protect them from harm. Certainly, just as I have (gently) tried to convince people who have lost loved ones to drunk driving or alcoholism that criminalizing alcohol would not be a moral response to their loss. Would you disagree? Keep in mind that alcohol kills tens of thousands of people every year, including thousands of children killed by alcohol-impaired drivers. Is this also a problem that needs to be solved by criminalizing all alcohol? If not, what's the difference in your opinion?
    - shakna 8y ago
      Australia didn't criminalize guns, we regulated them. Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated. Regulation, in Australia's case at least, works. We went from several large public shootings, to next to none. We currently have more guns than when regulation was brought in [0], but by preventing those who too unstable from gaining access, we've prevented many attacks on the public. Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access. And when they find a way to recover in those areas of concern, access is available. [0] https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/04/28/australia-s-gun-numbers-climb.html https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/04/28/australia...
      - nate_meurer 8y ago
        > Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated. Yes, and that clearly isn't enough. That's my whole point. Alcohol is still killing tens of thousands of people. Way more than firearms do (apart from war). > Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access. No kidding. You seem to assume that you're arguing with absolutist libertarian gun-nuts here. I'm all in favor of sensible regulation. I'm merely pushing back a bit on craigsmansion's brainless knee-jerk "But Sandy Hook!!!" reflex, which is as useless here as it is in similar debates over other dangers like drugs and alcohol.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

> as a populous is armed it can strike fear in the government. Or it can shoot up a pre-school. Only one of these things actually happens outside of adolescent power fantasies.

flagfeedingusa 8y ago

Please provide a source of all the preschools that have been shot up in america.

lettergram 8y ago

I actually provided an example where an armed populous did strike fear into the government. The IRA were targeting MPs and fairly quickly after that there were good Friday agreement discussions. There are counter examples to every case, but my point was the Australian government can do what it wants because it's populous let's them.

tossaccount123 8y ago

Afghanistan and Vietnam would love to speak to you. Think about all the heat Obama got for drone strikes in the middle east and now imagine what would happen if they tried to do that in the United States? Factor in that close to 90% of infantry and special forces are either conservative or libertarian. US government is helpless against its citizens as long as they are armed

nate_meurer 8y ago

So, had you lived at the time of the American Revolution, do you imagine yourself among the pretentious loyalists accusing the founding fathers of "adolescent power fantasies"?

craigsmansion 8y ago
Surprisingly, I have not lived at the time of the American Revolution. Neither have you. Who we are contemporary with are the parents of a lot of dead kids; maybe you should explain to them the necessity of guns to protect them from harm. But keep on living in the past. If events like Sandy Hooks can't change your collective opinion, I doubt that anything will. It's all on your hands, you proud all-american weekend warriors.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  we also have every country the US has gone to war with in half a century
- nate_meurer 8y ago
  > Surprisingly, I have not lived at the time of the American Revolution. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking you to imagine, or in other words, pretend for the sake of argument, that you lived at that time, and then ask yourself whether you'd join the loyalists in calling for the colonists to be disarmed. Does that make sense? If you cannot understand why many Americans are unwilling to discard a right that was fundamental to the very existence of their nation, then you'll never be able to debate this topic productively. > maybe you should explain to them the necessity of guns to protect them from harm. Certainly, just as I have (gently) tried to convince people who have lost loved ones to drunk driving or alcoholism that criminalizing alcohol would not be a moral response to their loss. Would you disagree? Keep in mind that alcohol kills tens of thousands of people every year, including thousands of children killed by alcohol-impaired drivers. Is this also a problem that needs to be solved by criminalizing all alcohol? If not, what's the difference in your opinion?
  - shakna 8y ago
    Australia didn't criminalize guns, we regulated them. Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated. Regulation, in Australia's case at least, works. We went from several large public shootings, to next to none. We currently have more guns than when regulation was brought in [0], but by preventing those who too unstable from gaining access, we've prevented many attacks on the public. Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access. And when they find a way to recover in those areas of concern, access is available. [0] https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/04/28/australia-s-gun-numbers-climb.html https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/04/28/australia...
    - nate_meurer 8y ago
      > Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated. Yes, and that clearly isn't enough. That's my whole point. Alcohol is still killing tens of thousands of people. Way more than firearms do (apart from war). > Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access. No kidding. You seem to assume that you're arguing with absolutist libertarian gun-nuts here. I'm all in favor of sensible regulation. I'm merely pushing back a bit on craigsmansion's brainless knee-jerk "But Sandy Hook!!!" reflex, which is as useless here as it is in similar debates over other dangers like drugs and alcohol.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]