5 ms·

I really have trouble believing that the real reason people want a gun is so they can fend off the government. To be honest when you consider the opposition(the

by ollysb 13y ago

I really have trouble believing that the real reason people want a gun is so they can fend off the government. To be honest when you consider the opposition(the American military!) I don't know how anyone can say it with a straight face.

gridmaths 13y ago
But lets update the technology from when 'right to bear arms' was written ... If modern arms are cyber-warfare and information flow, then the arms to keep that power in check are computation, math, encryption, anonymity, private messaging, realtime chat, social networks, web graphics ... So the right to bear arms in todays terms, I would argue, _is_ the right to a) private internet communications between parties and b) public information broadcast to everyone
- grappler 13y ago
  That would certainly fit with the classification of encryption methods by the government as “munitions”. p.s. web graphics?
willurd 13y ago
I hear this one a lot. "The military is so big, they have missiles, drones, etc etc etc, you could never defeat them in battle." This argument has several flaws: 1. This is just more proof that we (the people) need to hold on to whatever arms we can get. We've mistakenly let our military accrue a cache and kind of weaponry that we have not allowed even ourselves to possess. If the powder keg does explode, less arms is not better than more. 2. Many service men and women take their pledge to uphold the constitution very seriously, and would not take up arms against the American people (and most likely would take up arms against a tyrannical government, should it come to that). This is why many veterans are proclaimed mentally incompetent and disarmed (http://www.benefits.va.gov/pensionandfiduciary/fiduciary/beneficiary.asp http://www.benefits.va.gov/pensionandfiduciary/fiduciary/ben..., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NlBgtIeU1s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NlBgtIeU1s). 3. There are 1.5 million active military personnel and 850 thousand reserves (Wikipedia). There 311 million Americans, not including the roughly 3 million that are active or reserve military personnel. We are a bigger force by far. 4. "You're going to die if you fight." Appeal to emotion. 5. "How can you even say that with a straight face." Appeal to ridicule. 6. There are many reasons to "want a gun" beyond protecting yourself from tyranny, including self defense from criminals, sport, hunting and recreation. But "wanting" has nothing to do with it. You don't need to explain why you want a gun and you don't have to show a "need" for it. It is your inalienable (seriously, look this word up, ponder its meaning) right. It cannot be taken from you (though you can give it up willingly, I suppose). EDIT: 7. In 2011, Ron Paul received 6 times (http://ronpaulronpaul.com/ http://ronpaulronpaul.com/) more in contributions from active military personnel than all of the other republican candidates combined. For those that don't know, Ron Paul ran on a campaign of small government, less war, etc. That should tell you where our military stands on this matter.
- westicle 13y ago
  In regards to point 6, how do you figure? I don't have that right, ergo it must not be inalienable. I might as well say it is an inalienable right to possess pipe bombs and molotov cocktails. At least those things are easily obtainable.
  - willurd 13y ago
    Pipe bombs and molotov cocktails are "arms" (just ask the government). Don't confuse "should you" with "do you have the right". Should you have pipe bombs and molotov cocktails? Probably not, as I'm sure they are illegal. And even if they weren't, you might decide it's not a good idea for you. But do you have that right? I think our founding fathers intended for us to be as well, or even more well armed than our government. But again, there's a double standard going on here. Our government, even our local police forces, have these capabilities. They have the modern day and sophisticated equivalents of pipe bombs and molotov cocktails (grenades, flash bangs, drones, actual assault rifles, etc). Why are we trusting these people with these kinds of munitions? Anybody who has been paying any attention in the last 50 years has seen the gross abuses of power perpetrated by our police and government. So I ask again, why are we allowing them to have this kind of fire power? Or, do they just take it without our consent? If so, why do we need their consent to arm ourselves? Aren't we the boss? Don't they work for us? Aren't they public servants?
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > Many service men and women take their pledge to uphold the constitution very seriously, and would not take up arms against the American people This has been disproved by President Washington during the Whiskey rebellion. Everyone had equal guns and the insurrection was squashed.
  - willurd 13y ago
    That was over 200 years ago. I am talking about people today. cf. point 7.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
sneak 13y ago
The people bearing arms isn't to shoot at the government. That's a common misconception. It's a deterrent - enough people armed and willing to shoot at the government means that the government doesn't come knocking to create the situation wherein everyone loses. It's basically p2p/distributed mutually assured destruction. Eric Blair (who's ratings are spiking on Amazon this week, incidentally) once wrote: "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." "Stays there" both in the RKBA sense, and "stays there" in the "above the mantel and not taken down out of necessity" sense.
philwelch 13y ago
1. Iraqis did it. 2. You're more likely to be in combat against DHS/ATF/FBI, not military. You're even more likely to be in combat against local cops.

by ollysb 13y ago

gridmaths 13y ago

But lets update the technology from when 'right to bear arms' was written ... If modern arms are cyber-warfare and information flow, then the arms to keep that power in check are computation, math, encryption, anonymity, private messaging, realtime chat, social networks, web graphics ... So the right to bear arms in todays terms, I would argue, _is_ the right to a) private internet communications between parties and b) public information broadcast to everyone

grappler 13y ago
That would certainly fit with the classification of encryption methods by the government as “munitions”. p.s. web graphics?

willurd 13y ago

I hear this one a lot. "The military is so big, they have missiles, drones, etc etc etc, you could never defeat them in battle." This argument has several flaws: 1. This is just more proof that we (the people) need to hold on to whatever arms we can get. We've mistakenly let our military accrue a cache and kind of weaponry that we have not allowed even ourselves to possess. If the powder keg does explode, less arms is not better than more. 2. Many service men and women take their pledge to uphold the constitution very seriously, and would not take up arms against the American people (and most likely would take up arms against a tyrannical government, should it come to that). This is why many veterans are proclaimed mentally incompetent and disarmed (http://www.benefits.va.gov/pensionandfiduciary/fiduciary/beneficiary.asp http://www.benefits.va.gov/pensionandfiduciary/fiduciary/ben..., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NlBgtIeU1s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NlBgtIeU1s). 3. There are 1.5 million active military personnel and 850 thousand reserves (Wikipedia). There 311 million Americans, not including the roughly 3 million that are active or reserve military personnel. We are a bigger force by far. 4. "You're going to die if you fight." Appeal to emotion. 5. "How can you even say that with a straight face." Appeal to ridicule. 6. There are many reasons to "want a gun" beyond protecting yourself from tyranny, including self defense from criminals, sport, hunting and recreation. But "wanting" has nothing to do with it. You don't need to explain why you want a gun and you don't have to show a "need" for it. It is your inalienable (seriously, look this word up, ponder its meaning) right. It cannot be taken from you (though you can give it up willingly, I suppose). EDIT: 7. In 2011, Ron Paul received 6 times (http://ronpaulronpaul.com/ http://ronpaulronpaul.com/) more in contributions from active military personnel than all of the other republican candidates combined. For those that don't know, Ron Paul ran on a campaign of small government, less war, etc. That should tell you where our military stands on this matter.

westicle 13y ago
In regards to point 6, how do you figure? I don't have that right, ergo it must not be inalienable. I might as well say it is an inalienable right to possess pipe bombs and molotov cocktails. At least those things are easily obtainable.
- willurd 13y ago
  Pipe bombs and molotov cocktails are "arms" (just ask the government). Don't confuse "should you" with "do you have the right". Should you have pipe bombs and molotov cocktails? Probably not, as I'm sure they are illegal. And even if they weren't, you might decide it's not a good idea for you. But do you have that right? I think our founding fathers intended for us to be as well, or even more well armed than our government. But again, there's a double standard going on here. Our government, even our local police forces, have these capabilities. They have the modern day and sophisticated equivalents of pipe bombs and molotov cocktails (grenades, flash bangs, drones, actual assault rifles, etc). Why are we trusting these people with these kinds of munitions? Anybody who has been paying any attention in the last 50 years has seen the gross abuses of power perpetrated by our police and government. So I ask again, why are we allowing them to have this kind of fire power? Or, do they just take it without our consent? If so, why do we need their consent to arm ourselves? Aren't we the boss? Don't they work for us? Aren't they public servants?
darkarmani 13y ago
> Many service men and women take their pledge to uphold the constitution very seriously, and would not take up arms against the American people This has been disproved by President Washington during the Whiskey rebellion. Everyone had equal guns and the insurrection was squashed.
- willurd 13y ago
  That was over 200 years ago. I am talking about people today. cf. point 7.
- twoodfin 13y ago

sneak 13y ago

The people bearing arms isn't to shoot at the government. That's a common misconception. It's a deterrent - enough people armed and willing to shoot at the government means that the government doesn't come knocking to create the situation wherein everyone loses. It's basically p2p/distributed mutually assured destruction. Eric Blair (who's ratings are spiking on Amazon this week, incidentally) once wrote: "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." "Stays there" both in the RKBA sense, and "stays there" in the "above the mantel and not taken down out of necessity" sense.

philwelch 13y ago

1. Iraqis did it. 2. You're more likely to be in combat against DHS/ATF/FBI, not military. You're even more likely to be in combat against local cops.