4 ms·

The tyranny of the Canadian government is so overwhelming. How can I ever live in peace without a gun? Oh yea, I can use words.

notdrunkatall 14y ago
The history of the world is essentially a long string of instances of oppression of the many by the few. Democracy is but a blip on humanity's timeline, and there is no guarantee that what is today will still be a century or two (or a decade) from now. We came remarkably close to an all-out financial collapse just a few years ago - what happens if we aren't able to save ourselves the next time that happens; what happens if the system collapses? Answer: anything can happen, no one knows. Riots, destabilization, foreign invasion - no one knows what the future brings, and it could just as easily bring these things as it could bring continued prosperity. But there is one thing that is certain: with 300 million guns floating around the USA, if things do take a turn for the worse, the few will think twice before they consider trying to oppress the many in the USA. But you're right not to worry, because you're our favorite hat, so we'd take care of you.
- tome 14y ago
  If massacres of children in school and young students in college aren't examples of few oppressing many then I don't know what is.
  - jivatmanx 14y ago
    But hundreds of thousands of innocents killed in the "Shock and Awe" of Iraqi cities somehow doesn't count? More tyrannical U.S Government = More "Shock and Awe" abroad.
    - tome 14y ago
      I find it very hard to understand what you're saying.
      - jivatmanx 14y ago
        The number of innocent deaths caused by overly powerful government greatly dwarfs those caused by the freedom of firearm ownership. So if your goal is to reduce death of innocents, it would be best to side with greater freedom rather than greater government power.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    I left reddit to get away from those with facile arguments which relied on an appeals to emotion rather than logic and fact. Yours is one of the former. But I'll bite anyways: how many more children have died under oppressive regimes where the people were not able to defend themselves?
    - tome 14y ago
      Mine was not an argument, more a suggestion that your argument needs clarification. Please note that while I admire your aversion to "appeals to emotion" bringing "what happens if the system collapses? ... Riots, destabilization, foreign invasion" to the discussion may violate this ideal.
      - notdrunkatall 14y ago
        That is not an appeal to emotion, that is an appeal to history. The entire history of the human race has been that of oppression of the many by the few; only in the last few hundred years have we begun to cast off those chains, and though it is tempting to believe that we will never see them again, people still desire power, sociopaths still exist, and considering the history of our species, I think it unlikely that the world has seen the end of destabilization, riots, and war. It has only been half a century since the end of the last 'War to End All Wars,' which happened just a couple of decades after the previous War to End All Wars, shortly after the second World War, the world fell under the shadow of the Cold War, a period where we came very close to all-out global nuclear war numerous times. I'm sure you're familiar with the Cuban Missile Crisis. You may also want to google Stanislov Petrov. Ask an economist just how close we came to all-out GLOBAL banking collapse just a few years ago; we were within a hair's breadth of a severe financial meltdown, and that is not an appeal to emotion - that is fact. None of us can predict the future, but to assume that we have seen the end of destabilization and the unknowns that destabilization brings seems rather foolish.
        darkchasma 14y ago
        We're talking about getting rid of civillian arms, not the arms held by the military or even police officers. Every example you have given is a war between nations. If you want to play historian, give me an example where there was a better civil outcome when guns were used to overthrow tyranny, or tyrannical ideas. I'll start with the peaceful examples: Egypt, India, US Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage etc... Ideas change the world, not guns. And while you're at it, maybe you could tell me how your little handgun is going to protect you from the next Cuban Missile Crisis? You must be a hellofa shot!

notdrunkatall 14y ago

The history of the world is essentially a long string of instances of oppression of the many by the few. Democracy is but a blip on humanity's timeline, and there is no guarantee that what is today will still be a century or two (or a decade) from now. We came remarkably close to an all-out financial collapse just a few years ago - what happens if we aren't able to save ourselves the next time that happens; what happens if the system collapses? Answer: anything can happen, no one knows. Riots, destabilization, foreign invasion - no one knows what the future brings, and it could just as easily bring these things as it could bring continued prosperity. But there is one thing that is certain: with 300 million guns floating around the USA, if things do take a turn for the worse, the few will think twice before they consider trying to oppress the many in the USA. But you're right not to worry, because you're our favorite hat, so we'd take care of you.

tome 14y ago
If massacres of children in school and young students in college aren't examples of few oppressing many then I don't know what is.
- jivatmanx 14y ago
  But hundreds of thousands of innocents killed in the "Shock and Awe" of Iraqi cities somehow doesn't count? More tyrannical U.S Government = More "Shock and Awe" abroad.
  - tome 14y ago
    I find it very hard to understand what you're saying.
    - jivatmanx 14y ago
      The number of innocent deaths caused by overly powerful government greatly dwarfs those caused by the freedom of firearm ownership. So if your goal is to reduce death of innocents, it would be best to side with greater freedom rather than greater government power.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  I left reddit to get away from those with facile arguments which relied on an appeals to emotion rather than logic and fact. Yours is one of the former. But I'll bite anyways: how many more children have died under oppressive regimes where the people were not able to defend themselves?
  - tome 14y ago
    Mine was not an argument, more a suggestion that your argument needs clarification. Please note that while I admire your aversion to "appeals to emotion" bringing "what happens if the system collapses? ... Riots, destabilization, foreign invasion" to the discussion may violate this ideal.
    - notdrunkatall 14y ago
      That is not an appeal to emotion, that is an appeal to history. The entire history of the human race has been that of oppression of the many by the few; only in the last few hundred years have we begun to cast off those chains, and though it is tempting to believe that we will never see them again, people still desire power, sociopaths still exist, and considering the history of our species, I think it unlikely that the world has seen the end of destabilization, riots, and war. It has only been half a century since the end of the last 'War to End All Wars,' which happened just a couple of decades after the previous War to End All Wars, shortly after the second World War, the world fell under the shadow of the Cold War, a period where we came very close to all-out global nuclear war numerous times. I'm sure you're familiar with the Cuban Missile Crisis. You may also want to google Stanislov Petrov. Ask an economist just how close we came to all-out GLOBAL banking collapse just a few years ago; we were within a hair's breadth of a severe financial meltdown, and that is not an appeal to emotion - that is fact. None of us can predict the future, but to assume that we have seen the end of destabilization and the unknowns that destabilization brings seems rather foolish.
      - darkchasma 14y ago
        We're talking about getting rid of civillian arms, not the arms held by the military or even police officers. Every example you have given is a war between nations. If you want to play historian, give me an example where there was a better civil outcome when guns were used to overthrow tyranny, or tyrannical ideas. I'll start with the peaceful examples: Egypt, India, US Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage etc... Ideas change the world, not guns. And while you're at it, maybe you could tell me how your little handgun is going to protect you from the next Cuban Missile Crisis? You must be a hellofa shot!