5 ms·

"Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check," Really? Are you sure its not just a case of guns being ingrained in American

by alan_cx 13y ago

"Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check," Really? Are you sure its not just a case of guns being ingrained in American culture and make the owners feel all macho and strong, and that any old excuse is good enough to argue that they should be allowed to keep huge pointless arsenals of weaponry? I mean, from what I can tell, such people are generally on the right of politics, and at the same time they argue that they need guns to protect against a threat from within, they believe Obama is a non American, communist, Muslim. Well, er, wouldn't that be a great threat from with in to the US? Where were these citizen protectors of American freedom when Obama the commie Muslim took office? Shouldn't they have been using their arsenals to protect America? Or do such people actually know they are taking nonsense? On top of that, when in the last, say, 100 years has the US government posed a threat to American citizens, such that they citizens needed to break out the weapon to protect them selves? Frankly I think its more to do with male machismo, culture and being stuck in the 17th century. They have always had guns, and what ever logic you argue with, they simply don't want to change. If you managed to convince then that the government isn't out to get them, they'd just find another excuse. It reminds me of fox hunting in the UK, or bull fighting in Spain. All these things defy reason, logic and decency, but we all want to hang on to them, simply because they have always been there. Heh, its kinda like saying you can have music any more. I'm sorry, people may claim they want guns for the reason you cite, but I honestly don't believe them at all.

dxhdr 13y ago
"when in the last, say, 100 years has the US government posed a threat to American citizens" I'll name one -- Japanese internment camps during WWII. Forcibly imprisoned over a hundred thousand citizens against their will, depriving them of their liberty and property. But I suppose in your world view the government has final say over your life and property, so being able to deter or resist attacks like this is unnecessary.
- purplelobster 13y ago
  So in your mind, it would be better then if a hundred thousand armed Japanese would have started fighting back on mainland US? How about, instead of permanently distrusting the government, try to make it more democratic. There shouldn't have to be rebellions in a democratic country, then you talk it out and try to convince everybody else. If you can't, then touch luck, you're in the minority. That doesn't mean you have the right to start a damn rebellion and carve yourself a new country by force.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Read the second paragraph of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...) It seems indeed that he has the right, nay, the duty, to do exactly that. I quote from the above: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
    - dkuntz2 13y ago
      While the Declaration states that they (Jefferson et al.) see it as their civic duty to fight an oppressive government (a fairly Lockean view, pretty much lifted from the Second Treatise), again, it was mostly an inflammatory document, written not for the benefit of Parliament and the King, but for other nations who might consider joining the fight. Analogically using the Declaration today doesn't really work, there aren't any of the great political thinkers of yore around, and we don't have any comparatively great thinkers (in the same sense). We're too founded on our two party system at the present to move anywhere. Plus, today's government would refuse to accept any rebellion, regardless of what historical document they cite. Technically, politically, the Union never recognized the Confederate States of America as a sovereign nation, but a rebellion. That's the largest and longest instance of such a 'rebellion'. It's likely going to remain such. Of course, that's due to the fact that there really wasn't any way for the Confederacy to win. They couldn't have taken and held the north. If they did, they would have assimilated the culture they were fighting against, and would be in the same situation as before they rebelled. That actually leads me to a slight tangent, but my favorite fact about the Emancipation Proclamation is that it didn't technically free the slaves. It freed the slaves only in rebelling states. Northern slave-holding states could remain as-is. Moving back on topic: the Declaration of Independence continually cites 'Him' and 'He' in reference to George III. George III had no power. Okay, he had a little power, but he wasn't really calling the shots any more (he never was, his reign started almost a century after the fall of the Commonwealth and slightly less after the Glorious Revolution, which cemented Great Britain as a constitutional monarchy). One could argue the use of He and Him are due to George's refusal to intervene with Parliament (something he really couldn't do). Again, it goes back to they saw an opportunity to start something new, even though if they worked slightly harder at getting representation, they could have.
thecoffman 13y ago
It is sad that the sort of bigoted opinions you're espousing here are what us firearms enthusiasts have to endure. It has nothing to do with machismo, nothing to do with Obama, and nothing to do with birther garbage. The right to bear arms is a right of last resort. Its the right that protects all others and, as such, it is the _most_ essential right. As for naming incidents in the last 100 years where armed resistance to the United States government would have been productive or useful, I recommend you look up the forced internment of Japanese Americans during World War 2. I also recommend that you read about the Black Panthers standing up to corrupt Oakland police and marching on government buildings, loaded guns in hand. You don't have to be a crazy conspiracy theorist or a right-winger to realize the thought that "something like that couldn't happen in America" is naive at best. edit: I omitted an "n"
- Jtsummers 13y ago
  An issue facing firearm enthusiasts is that the most vocal (or at least the ones getting the most press) are in those camps. It's the same problem that faces many other groups, the extremists and zealots are the loudest and the ones people outside the group see. Any reasonable voice gets drowned out. > The right to bear arms is a right of last resort. Its the right that protects all others and, as such, it is the _most_ essential right. I'm going to have to disagree with this statement though. The 1st amendments's protections on speech, assembly and the press strikes me as a more important collection oy rights. It's what prevents us from needing to pull out our weapons and go to war against our government. Especially these days, with our technology and ability to disseminate information. I won't make the claim that many of the travesties of the past couldn't be repeated today in the US, but they'll be a lot harder to accomplish. Also, given the relatively short period US presidents and congresspersons stay in office, the voters actually have a chance to accomplish something if they'd show up in greater numbers and vote along something other than party lines.
  - csense 13y ago
    No less a hacker than Eric S. Raymond has recently written thought-provoking blog posts about this not long ago: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4939 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4939
smokeyj 13y ago
> If you managed to convince then that the government isn't out to get them, they'd just find another excuse. It's interesting you think I need an "excuse" for owning a firearm. As if it's our natural place in this universe to require permission from said "authorities". Here's an excuse -- I want one. You don't want me to? Come and take it.
DamnYuppie 13y ago
When 40% of women in the U.S own a firearm it isn't all about being macho. Also only 55% of males own a firearm. The machismo factor is played up in the media and in Hollywood but most free thinking people question such motives and at least attempt to see through propaganda. Regardless I find your position to be a bit naive and fails to fully realize how governments progress and the impacts they have on their citizenry. Just because a government isn't actively out to get you ATM doesn't mean they don't possess the overwhelming means to do so and that people should have the means to defend themselves against that if such an occasion arises.
csense 13y ago
> Shouldn't they have been using their arsenals to protect America? Rebellion is a last resort. Things haven't gotten bad enough yet. > when in the last, say, 100 years This number is conveniently chosen to be just below the Civil War. > they'd just find another excuse Self defense? If we were some European country that's historically always had only a few gun owners and tight control of guns since firearms were invented, then gun control would make some kind of sense, it would be possible to control the small number of firearms that exist. But the US started out as a frontier country where firearms were necessary for survival, and gun ownership has always been part of the American way for a large number of people. So there are millions of guns already out there -- too many to possibly control. If the massive supermajority necessary to repeal a constitutional amendment and outlaw firearms magically materialized tomorrow, those millions of guns would still be out there. Presumably drug dealers, rapists, bank robbers, stalkers, and other criminals would keep their guns, and there would be enough remaining in underworld circulation to supply future members of those professions. If a person wants a gun badly enough, he'll always be able to get one. Gun control wouldn't significantly reduce the number of bad people who have access to guns, it would just curtail access for responsible, law-abiding citizens. Guns -- and in particular concealed carry laws -- also act as a deterrent for criminals. If someone's in a desperate situation and contemplating crime, it seems to me that the possibility of a hole in the head from an armed bystander would make them hesitate a lot more than if the worst-case scenario involves getting a roof and three square meals a day at taxpayer expense (even if they get the death penalty it'll be many years before the appeals are exhausted and the sentence is carried out). At least to me, these considerations don't sound like "excuses," but well-reasoned arguments. Please point out the holes.
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  > > when in the last, say 1-- years > > This number is conveniently chosen to be just below the Civil War Which was 150% the original number, not "just" below the Civil War. The Civil Wars was closer to the signing of the Declaration than today.
- katbyte 13y ago
  >and there would be enough remaining in underworld circulation to supply future members of those professions Not to mention eventually you'll be able to 'print' a gun from a 3d printer or use your personal affordable CNC mill. Its just going to get easier and easier to make your own weapons.

by alan_cx 13y ago

dxhdr 13y ago

"when in the last, say, 100 years has the US government posed a threat to American citizens" I'll name one -- Japanese internment camps during WWII. Forcibly imprisoned over a hundred thousand citizens against their will, depriving them of their liberty and property. But I suppose in your world view the government has final say over your life and property, so being able to deter or resist attacks like this is unnecessary.

purplelobster 13y ago
So in your mind, it would be better then if a hundred thousand armed Japanese would have started fighting back on mainland US? How about, instead of permanently distrusting the government, try to make it more democratic. There shouldn't have to be rebellions in a democratic country, then you talk it out and try to convince everybody else. If you can't, then touch luck, you're in the minority. That doesn't mean you have the right to start a damn rebellion and carve yourself a new country by force.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  Read the second paragraph of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...) It seems indeed that he has the right, nay, the duty, to do exactly that. I quote from the above: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
  - dkuntz2 13y ago
    While the Declaration states that they (Jefferson et al.) see it as their civic duty to fight an oppressive government (a fairly Lockean view, pretty much lifted from the Second Treatise), again, it was mostly an inflammatory document, written not for the benefit of Parliament and the King, but for other nations who might consider joining the fight. Analogically using the Declaration today doesn't really work, there aren't any of the great political thinkers of yore around, and we don't have any comparatively great thinkers (in the same sense). We're too founded on our two party system at the present to move anywhere. Plus, today's government would refuse to accept any rebellion, regardless of what historical document they cite. Technically, politically, the Union never recognized the Confederate States of America as a sovereign nation, but a rebellion. That's the largest and longest instance of such a 'rebellion'. It's likely going to remain such. Of course, that's due to the fact that there really wasn't any way for the Confederacy to win. They couldn't have taken and held the north. If they did, they would have assimilated the culture they were fighting against, and would be in the same situation as before they rebelled. That actually leads me to a slight tangent, but my favorite fact about the Emancipation Proclamation is that it didn't technically free the slaves. It freed the slaves only in rebelling states. Northern slave-holding states could remain as-is. Moving back on topic: the Declaration of Independence continually cites 'Him' and 'He' in reference to George III. George III had no power. Okay, he had a little power, but he wasn't really calling the shots any more (he never was, his reign started almost a century after the fall of the Commonwealth and slightly less after the Glorious Revolution, which cemented Great Britain as a constitutional monarchy). One could argue the use of He and Him are due to George's refusal to intervene with Parliament (something he really couldn't do). Again, it goes back to they saw an opportunity to start something new, even though if they worked slightly harder at getting representation, they could have.

thecoffman 13y ago

It is sad that the sort of bigoted opinions you're espousing here are what us firearms enthusiasts have to endure. It has nothing to do with machismo, nothing to do with Obama, and nothing to do with birther garbage. The right to bear arms is a right of last resort. Its the right that protects all others and, as such, it is the _most_ essential right. As for naming incidents in the last 100 years where armed resistance to the United States government would have been productive or useful, I recommend you look up the forced internment of Japanese Americans during World War 2. I also recommend that you read about the Black Panthers standing up to corrupt Oakland police and marching on government buildings, loaded guns in hand. You don't have to be a crazy conspiracy theorist or a right-winger to realize the thought that "something like that couldn't happen in America" is naive at best. edit: I omitted an "n"

Jtsummers 13y ago
An issue facing firearm enthusiasts is that the most vocal (or at least the ones getting the most press) are in those camps. It's the same problem that faces many other groups, the extremists and zealots are the loudest and the ones people outside the group see. Any reasonable voice gets drowned out. > The right to bear arms is a right of last resort. Its the right that protects all others and, as such, it is the _most_ essential right. I'm going to have to disagree with this statement though. The 1st amendments's protections on speech, assembly and the press strikes me as a more important collection oy rights. It's what prevents us from needing to pull out our weapons and go to war against our government. Especially these days, with our technology and ability to disseminate information. I won't make the claim that many of the travesties of the past couldn't be repeated today in the US, but they'll be a lot harder to accomplish. Also, given the relatively short period US presidents and congresspersons stay in office, the voters actually have a chance to accomplish something if they'd show up in greater numbers and vote along something other than party lines.
- csense 13y ago
  No less a hacker than Eric S. Raymond has recently written thought-provoking blog posts about this not long ago: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4939 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4939

smokeyj 13y ago

> If you managed to convince then that the government isn't out to get them, they'd just find another excuse. It's interesting you think I need an "excuse" for owning a firearm. As if it's our natural place in this universe to require permission from said "authorities". Here's an excuse -- I want one. You don't want me to? Come and take it.

DamnYuppie 13y ago

When 40% of women in the U.S own a firearm it isn't all about being macho. Also only 55% of males own a firearm. The machismo factor is played up in the media and in Hollywood but most free thinking people question such motives and at least attempt to see through propaganda. Regardless I find your position to be a bit naive and fails to fully realize how governments progress and the impacts they have on their citizenry. Just because a government isn't actively out to get you ATM doesn't mean they don't possess the overwhelming means to do so and that people should have the means to defend themselves against that if such an occasion arises.

csense 13y ago

> Shouldn't they have been using their arsenals to protect America? Rebellion is a last resort. Things haven't gotten bad enough yet. > when in the last, say, 100 years This number is conveniently chosen to be just below the Civil War. > they'd just find another excuse Self defense? If we were some European country that's historically always had only a few gun owners and tight control of guns since firearms were invented, then gun control would make some kind of sense, it would be possible to control the small number of firearms that exist. But the US started out as a frontier country where firearms were necessary for survival, and gun ownership has always been part of the American way for a large number of people. So there are millions of guns already out there -- too many to possibly control. If the massive supermajority necessary to repeal a constitutional amendment and outlaw firearms magically materialized tomorrow, those millions of guns would still be out there. Presumably drug dealers, rapists, bank robbers, stalkers, and other criminals would keep their guns, and there would be enough remaining in underworld circulation to supply future members of those professions. If a person wants a gun badly enough, he'll always be able to get one. Gun control wouldn't significantly reduce the number of bad people who have access to guns, it would just curtail access for responsible, law-abiding citizens. Guns -- and in particular concealed carry laws -- also act as a deterrent for criminals. If someone's in a desperate situation and contemplating crime, it seems to me that the possibility of a hole in the head from an armed bystander would make them hesitate a lot more than if the worst-case scenario involves getting a roof and three square meals a day at taxpayer expense (even if they get the death penalty it'll be many years before the appeals are exhausted and the sentence is carried out). At least to me, these considerations don't sound like "excuses," but well-reasoned arguments. Please point out the holes.

dkuntz2 13y ago
> > when in the last, say 1-- years > > This number is conveniently chosen to be just below the Civil War Which was 150% the original number, not "just" below the Civil War. The Civil Wars was closer to the signing of the Declaration than today.
katbyte 13y ago
>and there would be enough remaining in underworld circulation to supply future members of those professions Not to mention eventually you'll be able to 'print' a gun from a 3d printer or use your personal affordable CNC mill. Its just going to get easier and easier to make your own weapons.