3 ms·

Wow. I love the rhetoric, but it's glaringly flawed. You're suggestion: people are driven by their basic instincts, so...they should all have access to guns. Co

by tomkin 14y ago

Wow. I love the rhetoric, but it's glaringly flawed. You're suggestion: people are driven by their basic instincts, so...they should all have access to guns. Couldn't make a better case against guns myself. Or is it that government is "special" and only the sort that would misplace their power? You do know the government is made up of citizens, right? Or do you think that once you get a government job you suddenly become vile? Would love your insight. Again, your argument sits within the confines of American reality, while the rest of the world gets by. What paranoid, delusional scenario do you see playing out exactly? Your government/other regime turns against you...and what? The rest of the world just sits back and watches your government attack its people? Come on, man. Really? You're the only modern country that thinks this way. Let that sink in for a bit.

18pfsmt 14y ago
Personally, I can't understand why you care about how 'we' handle guns in our country. I don't own a gun, but I appreciate the right for my fellow citizens. I don't care if you ban it in your country; why are you so interested in restricting freedoms of people on the other side of the world? >The rest of the world just sits back and watches your government attack its people? What are they going to do? Do you know how much we (the US) spends on military compared to the rest of the world? It's really no wonder that the citizens of such a country (not to mention drones, elective wars, and the "right" of the President to kill without trial) prefer to be able to own guns (as many as we can). >You're the only modern country that thinks this way. That's what Europeans have been saying to us for ~200 years (although, previously referring to things other than gun ownership). In other words, "What's wrong with having monarchies?"
- tomkin 14y ago
  > Personally, I can't understand why you care about how 'we' handle guns in our country. I don't, really. But it is frustrating watching, oh, I don't know, 95% of the developed world somehow getting by without guns while the US can't see past them. > What are they going to do? Do you know how much we (the US) spends on military compared to the rest of the world? It's really no wonder that the citizens of such a country (not to mention drones, elective wars, and the "right" of the President to kill without trial) prefer to be able to own guns (as many as we can). You're hope of defending yourself against government (i.e. drones - which can attack from the sky, no less), is infantile, to say the least. Explain how you, a member of HN, plan to de-weaponize your government with your pistol. > In other words, "What's wrong with having monarchies?" That's great rhetoric, except I'm not advocating for monarchies. That's a straw man argument, because I've not once advocated for such a thing. And it's not a black and white subject. Not having guns doesn't automatically make you a monarchy. Suggesting such is ridiculous and provides a fruitless argument.
  - 18pfsmt 14y ago
    Actually, it is neither rhetoric, nor a straw man; I never suggested that you, specifically, advocated for a monarchy. However, back in the 18th century, many people in Europe probably would have (Canada and Australia certainly opted for dependence upon a monarchy). My main point was to demonstrate that simply because other countries participate and subscribe to a certain way of doing things, does not mean it's the "right way to do it." I was not trying to put words in your mouth. Further, to suggest that the US should rid our society of guns is not realistic and betrays a significant lack of understanding of the prevalent culture in the US. >Explain how you, a member of HN, plan to de-weaponize your government with your pistol. Again, I do not own any gun, but if you would like to see how 'primitive' weapons can be used in defiance of powerful government, just look at Afghanistan or Vietnam. Just so we are doubly clear, I would prefer if all destructive weapons were destroyed, including those of governments. I just don't think that's realistic at this time.
notdrunkatall 14y ago
Yes, we are all flawed, and when one group of us gains the power to force another group of us do what they want, bad things tend to happen. That's why we have something called the decentralization of power through democracy - maybe you've heard of it? This isn't some crazy conspiracy theory - it's basic history and common sense. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot: these are but a few of the sociopaths who aspired to power in the last century alone; the list of what happens when too few people gain too much power goes on and on and on. And you think that it can't happen here? That it will never happen here? Then you are a fool. You cannot imagine a world where the right to bear arms for the purpose of defending ourselves against oppression not because such a world is unlikely, but because you lack foresight and the ability to examine history and your fellow man with a critical eye. The world has been this way throughout human history, and it is still this way today. Fifty years of relative peace on a timeline of hundreds of thousands of years of near-constant oppression do not mean we have progressed beyond those baser instincts. Guns are power; as such, the right to bear arms represents another form of the decentralization of power. If democracy fails, that final check will remain, and those who don't have their heads up their asses understand this relatively simple and basic truth. I am very well traveled, and I am well aware of what the rest of the world thinks about American notions of freedom. I have given this issue much consideration, and after many hours of careful deliberation and argument parsing, I have come to the conclusion that the right to bear arms is one of the few aspects of American culture that I am vehemently in favor of. I don't care whether the rest of the world understands these concepts or not - I do, we do, and we are clearly not interested in giving this right up easily. So if you don't like it, that's fine - no one's forcing you to abide by our rules (yet, heh). But if you think that this mindset is based on delusional thinking, paranoia, or anything other than sound reasoning; if you think that we are a bunch of gun-toting ignorant, overly aggressive, uncivilized assholes who're just too dumb to see things YOUR way, then please: allow me to kindly ask you to go fuck yourself.
- tomkin 14y ago
  Oh boy. What a great argument. Telling me to go fuck myself, and that you don't care what any one else thinks. Great rebuttal. Do you think that the 11,000+ people who are killed with firearms are worthless? Because they are being killed by sociopaths, you know, the kind you list above. You are alright with 11,000+ deaths (per year) because you feel, one day, maybe, there might be a possibility of a tyrannical government. That's not democracy, that's straight up lunacy. Get a straight jacket, my friend. Paranoia is abound. We're living in 2013, where communication and technology live. You're living in a time where tyrannical ideas are put to rest swiftly due to intelligence, due process and strong desire for freedom. Not something witnessed in the timeframe of the nuts you listed. Get a tinfoil hat. You're discounting the very people you claim to be vigilant, without realizing it.

by tomkin 14y ago

18pfsmt 14y ago

Personally, I can't understand why you care about how 'we' handle guns in our country. I don't own a gun, but I appreciate the right for my fellow citizens. I don't care if you ban it in your country; why are you so interested in restricting freedoms of people on the other side of the world? >The rest of the world just sits back and watches your government attack its people? What are they going to do? Do you know how much we (the US) spends on military compared to the rest of the world? It's really no wonder that the citizens of such a country (not to mention drones, elective wars, and the "right" of the President to kill without trial) prefer to be able to own guns (as many as we can). >You're the only modern country that thinks this way. That's what Europeans have been saying to us for ~200 years (although, previously referring to things other than gun ownership). In other words, "What's wrong with having monarchies?"

tomkin 14y ago
> Personally, I can't understand why you care about how 'we' handle guns in our country. I don't, really. But it is frustrating watching, oh, I don't know, 95% of the developed world somehow getting by without guns while the US can't see past them. > What are they going to do? Do you know how much we (the US) spends on military compared to the rest of the world? It's really no wonder that the citizens of such a country (not to mention drones, elective wars, and the "right" of the President to kill without trial) prefer to be able to own guns (as many as we can). You're hope of defending yourself against government (i.e. drones - which can attack from the sky, no less), is infantile, to say the least. Explain how you, a member of HN, plan to de-weaponize your government with your pistol. > In other words, "What's wrong with having monarchies?" That's great rhetoric, except I'm not advocating for monarchies. That's a straw man argument, because I've not once advocated for such a thing. And it's not a black and white subject. Not having guns doesn't automatically make you a monarchy. Suggesting such is ridiculous and provides a fruitless argument.
- 18pfsmt 14y ago
  Actually, it is neither rhetoric, nor a straw man; I never suggested that you, specifically, advocated for a monarchy. However, back in the 18th century, many people in Europe probably would have (Canada and Australia certainly opted for dependence upon a monarchy). My main point was to demonstrate that simply because other countries participate and subscribe to a certain way of doing things, does not mean it's the "right way to do it." I was not trying to put words in your mouth. Further, to suggest that the US should rid our society of guns is not realistic and betrays a significant lack of understanding of the prevalent culture in the US. >Explain how you, a member of HN, plan to de-weaponize your government with your pistol. Again, I do not own any gun, but if you would like to see how 'primitive' weapons can be used in defiance of powerful government, just look at Afghanistan or Vietnam. Just so we are doubly clear, I would prefer if all destructive weapons were destroyed, including those of governments. I just don't think that's realistic at this time.

notdrunkatall 14y ago

Yes, we are all flawed, and when one group of us gains the power to force another group of us do what they want, bad things tend to happen. That's why we have something called the decentralization of power through democracy - maybe you've heard of it? This isn't some crazy conspiracy theory - it's basic history and common sense. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot: these are but a few of the sociopaths who aspired to power in the last century alone; the list of what happens when too few people gain too much power goes on and on and on. And you think that it can't happen here? That it will never happen here? Then you are a fool. You cannot imagine a world where the right to bear arms for the purpose of defending ourselves against oppression not because such a world is unlikely, but because you lack foresight and the ability to examine history and your fellow man with a critical eye. The world has been this way throughout human history, and it is still this way today. Fifty years of relative peace on a timeline of hundreds of thousands of years of near-constant oppression do not mean we have progressed beyond those baser instincts. Guns are power; as such, the right to bear arms represents another form of the decentralization of power. If democracy fails, that final check will remain, and those who don't have their heads up their asses understand this relatively simple and basic truth. I am very well traveled, and I am well aware of what the rest of the world thinks about American notions of freedom. I have given this issue much consideration, and after many hours of careful deliberation and argument parsing, I have come to the conclusion that the right to bear arms is one of the few aspects of American culture that I am vehemently in favor of. I don't care whether the rest of the world understands these concepts or not - I do, we do, and we are clearly not interested in giving this right up easily. So if you don't like it, that's fine - no one's forcing you to abide by our rules (yet, heh). But if you think that this mindset is based on delusional thinking, paranoia, or anything other than sound reasoning; if you think that we are a bunch of gun-toting ignorant, overly aggressive, uncivilized assholes who're just too dumb to see things YOUR way, then please: allow me to kindly ask you to go fuck yourself.

tomkin 14y ago
Oh boy. What a great argument. Telling me to go fuck myself, and that you don't care what any one else thinks. Great rebuttal. Do you think that the 11,000+ people who are killed with firearms are worthless? Because they are being killed by sociopaths, you know, the kind you list above. You are alright with 11,000+ deaths (per year) because you feel, one day, maybe, there might be a possibility of a tyrannical government. That's not democracy, that's straight up lunacy. Get a straight jacket, my friend. Paranoia is abound. We're living in 2013, where communication and technology live. You're living in a time where tyrannical ideas are put to rest swiftly due to intelligence, due process and strong desire for freedom. Not something witnessed in the timeframe of the nuts you listed. Get a tinfoil hat. You're discounting the very people you claim to be vigilant, without realizing it.