Gun Control

[Gilly]

Not the first time I hear something like that. However, the right to keep and bear guns is worth a damn once you lost your civil liberties since you almost never get them back.

Freedom is not just about what you can and can't do. Freedom is about whether or not you live in fear, and whether you feel like you have any ability to confront whatever it is that threatens you, or if you are just living in silent subservience to your circumstances.

History has shown that it's a wise rule to resist the beginnings! For that it's already too late, though. The Bush admin was convinced and so is the Obama admin, incl. congress, that in order to protect its citizens from further terror attacks and to be able to respond to the so-called "unusual threat of terrorism" extraordinary power or even a carte blanche is required and they obviously lost sight of their obligation to also defend the constitution, not having any other agenda at the back of their mind unlike prolly the right-wing. However, the best way to remind them to do so and restore several things is to remove all the fuckers from their position of power by voting them out (no guns needed) but unfortunately that doesn't look promising so far since the vast majority seems to be either too lazy or still doesn't really care or doesn't see the need to care or is too busy and doesn't have time to care or is still scared by the so-called "unusual threat of terrorism" and as such willing to give the government as much extraordinary power as they want because whatever the government does is just for "their own safety", refusing to think for themselves... and who wants to think anyway. And the bad economy plays into the governments hand since it keeps people busy and they have enough other things to worry about which makes it even more easy to continue to try to classify their own crimes/wrongdoings and aggressively pursue those who dare to uncover them, make rules up as they go along, ravage the constitution even further, hide and constrain access to public information ect. for the sake of "national security" without having to expect much resistance. But whenever I hear "will threaten our national security" the first thing that comes to mind is that this is the all-purpose get out clause which only means, something nasty has happened but we don't wanna talk about it 'cos somebody high up may have to take the blame.

I agree the system is broken, and people need a seriously rude awakening. But gun ownership is one thing that can at least maintain the sense of the balance of power, for whatever that threat entails, one layer of which is the bad publicity that goes along with trying to do away with them.

.... and once the government can monitor everything you won't be able to fight back with your guns anymore anyway.

Depends on how good guns get. Depends on what kind of other weapons we can get. Depends on a lot of things.

[Gilly]

and if a country's legislature is adapted to changing circumstances without regard for its core tenets (which in this case amounts to liberty...), the given governing body is granted virtual carte blanche, which is exactly what these alleged fundamentalists you criticize are speaking out against, and what our founding fathers warned us against.

I think this is the crux of the issue. Not only did the founding fathers live in a far harsher time, with much more real and overt demonstrations of the abuse of absolute power than we experience in OUR daily lives (as the benefactors of their foresight), therefore having a better idea of the true limits that people must go to in order to preserve their freedom, they also established a set of agreements that, in itself, represented a palpable backbone for the further agreements that should govern our society. The only way, in my view, that the constitution should be altered or have its hairs split in any way, is if circumstances of our evolving society make them substantially detrimental to our progress and the preservation of the core attitude of liberty. In my mind this is not at all the case with our current atmosphere of gun ownership.

sanctioning the indefinite detention and torture of the same people you offer hope to is but a viler form of heralding extermination campaigns.

Amen.

[Korpsy Knievel]

[LauriesCrusador]

Freedom is not just about what you can and can't do. Freedom is about whether or not you live in fear, and whether you feel like you have any ability to confront whatever it is that threatens you, or if you are just living in silent subservience to your circumstances.



I agree the system is broken, and people need a seriously rude awakening. But gun ownership is one thing that can at least maintain the sense of the balance of power, for whatever that threat entails, one layer of which is the bad publicity that goes along with trying to do away with them.



Depends on how good guns get. Depends on what kind of other weapons we can get. Depends on a lot of things.

Yep, and government tries to do their best to continue to keep Americans live in fear and those few who don't and care and stand up to government get to feel its full wrath to make it clear that the government does not tolerate, not even a little, when its citizens take action and one can only hope that this does not scare people even further and thus deters them from taking action but one also can't be surprised if it does.

Unfortunately, I do not see that the vast majority will get out of their comfort zone anytime soon because government's next step won't be much worse than the last and since the vast majority wasn't shocked by the last step and didnt make a stand at it why should they at the next "change" since it's just for "their own safety"... and so on and so things have to become much much much much worse in order to get the masses out of their comfort zone and so the rude awakening will happen waaaaaaaaaay later. Until then continuing to restrict liberties and implement further "reforms" in order to protect its citizens and to be able to respond to/combat the threat of terrorism will be almost a no-brainer for the government and will, eventually, make reversing things even more difficult or impossible.

As for "gun ownership is one thing that can at least maintain the sense of balance of power", yeah... but it's just that and nothing more and so it's not much worth. Furthermore the pressure on the government to finally enact specific gun control laws increases so it's not the question IF just when and, basically, nobody actually needs an AK47 or something like that to defend oneself not even in rural areas where a grizzly might knock at your door. ...and since the government has an interesting way to define or interpret things at times, they might also just ban the right to keep and bear (certain) guns OUTSIDE. Second Amendment does not mention anything about it - it's all just a matter of interpretation. It also states "A well regulated Militia..." which will for sure be interpreted as an "Army composed of ordinary citizens organized and commanded by the government", i.e. people forming a militia for fighting against the government is a crime.

Also, fighting against well-trained forces is something different than some shooting range at the weekend and I also wouldn't rely on soldiers refusing to fight against their own countrymen since they usually just toe the line and do not dare to refuse to follow orders for fear of reprisals/punishment and once the government can monitor everything and thus you no longer will be able to organize riots throughout the country 'cos the government will know and pursues/arrests those, which makes the whole thing less effective or even completely ineffective, it's kind of easy for the government to sell peoples and its own actions the "right" way and put down a rebellion and what was once implemented with the intention to be able to respond to the "unusual threat of terrorism" and to protect its citizens from further terror attacks can then conveniently be used to keep its own citizen in check.

I also wouldn't want to hand my guns over because "Gun ownership is one thing that can at least maintain the sense of balance of power" but this is just allowing oneself to be lulled into a false sense of security/power.

But maybe I will have to watch Red Dawn some more time to get in the right spirit....

[Gilly]

Yep, and government tries to do their best to continue to keep Americans live in fear and those few who don't and care and stand up to government get to feel its full wrath to make it clear that the government does not tolerate, not even a little, when its citizens take action and one can only hope that this does not scare people even further and thus deters them from taking action but one also can't be surprised if it does.

Unfortunately, I do not see that the vast majority will get out of their comfort zone anytime soon because government's next step won't be much worse than the last and since the vast majority wasn't shocked by the last step and didnt make a stand at it why should they at the next "change" since it's just for "their own safety"... and so on and so things have to become much much much much worse in order to get the masses out of their comfort zone and so the rude awakening will happen waaaaaaaaaay later. Until then continuing to restrict liberties and implement further "reforms" in order to protect its citizens and to be able to respond to/combat the threat of terrorism will be almost a no-brainer for the government and will, eventually, make reversing things even more difficult or impossible.

Yes, and the illegalization of assault weapons is one of these "reforms" which both makes people feel "safer" in the sense of imposing the idea that we live in a world where gun ownership is not necessary, AND consists of stealing a few very important pieces in the puzzle of how we as a society can maintain our freedom in the face of potential government suppression.

As for "gun ownership is one thing that can at least maintain the sense of balance of power", yeah... but it's just that and nothing more and so it's not much worth.

I think you both underestimate the political/social weight of this phenomenon, and oversimplify guns' importance in their role as one of the central threads in the web of how we protect our freedom from falling into the womb of aggressive, abusive, coldly calculating governmental herding of masses.

Furthermore the pressure on the government to finally enact specific gun control laws increases so it's not the question IF just when and, basically, nobody actually needs an AK47 or something like that to defend oneself not even in rural areas where a grizzly might knock at your door. ...and since the government has an interesting way to define or interpret things at times, they might also just ban the right to keep and bear (certain) guns OUTSIDE. Second Amendment does not mention anything about it - it's all just a matter of interpretation. It also states "A well regulated Militia..." which will for sure be interpreted as an "Army composed of ordinary citizens organized and commanded by the government", i.e. people forming a militia for fighting against the government is a crime.

Also, fighting against well-trained forces is something different than some shooting range at the weekend and I also wouldn't rely on soldiers refusing to fight against their own countrymen since they usually just toe the line and do not dare to refuse to follow orders for fear of reprisals/punishment and once the government can monitor everything and thus you no longer will be able to organize riots throughout the country 'cos the government will know and pursues/arrests those, which makes the whole thing less effective or even completely ineffective, it's kind of easy for the government to sell peoples and its own actions the "right" way and put down a rebellion and what was once implemented with the intention to be able to respond to the "unusual threat of terrorism" and to protect its citizens from further terror attacks can then conveniently be used to keep its own citizen in check.

The real point of widespread gun ownership, in my opinion, does not come down to citizens actually successfully staging a military coup, but rather in the sheer messiness that the threat of this kind of conflict imposes upon the bureaucratic structure of a government. Gun ownership does not stand alone in it's importance as a deterrent to government overreach, but rather as one of the greatest complicating factors among the many that combine to give weight to our freedom as an extant, singular but multifaceted entity which does more than simply protest in its own interest: it insists upon it.

I also wouldn't want to hand my guns over because "Gun ownership is one thing that can at least maintain the sense of balance of power" but this is just allowing oneself to be lulled into a false sense of security/power.

And basing a society on the idea that people don't need to be willing to die for their freedom while giving them the illusion that their votes count...is ALSO lulling people into a false sense of security and power, and a much better one, if you actually think about the consequences and resulting mentalities.

But maybe I will have to watch Red Dawn some more time to get in the right spirit....

*shrug*

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Freedom is about whether or not you live in fear, and whether you feel like you have any ability to confront whatever it is that threatens you, or if you are just living in silent subservience to your circumstances.

Just because something threatens one personally, doesn't mean they have right to destroy it. You can confront and argue with it, but it's impossible to destruct principals themselves.

[strrrng]

well, that's kind of the issue here. the rights outlined in our founding documents aren't really things that need ink to be substantiated. in this sense the constitution was a moral compromise. no one can tell you you can't stand up for your life if you believe you can, which reveals the basis of law itself -- uncertainty over one's relation to the other. the degree of respect with which primitive boundaries are maintained starts and ends within. giving it a symbolic format offers a very convenient sense of security, but one which, due to being anchored by fear, ultimately paves the way for self-deception and moral complacency, i.e. the modern democratic state. so it's less a matter of people 'standing up for their rights,' than realizing the extent to which they've already given them away. and I suspect this is the real mechanism behind america's design -- juxtaposing a governing body with natural liberty compels a revolution on the most basic, internal level.

[LauriesCrusador]

Yes, and the illegalization of assault weapons is one of these "reforms" which both makes people feel "safer" in the sense of imposing the idea that we live in a world where gun ownership is not necessary, AND consists of stealing a few very important pieces in the puzzle of how we as a society can maintain our freedom in the face of potential government suppression.



I think you both underestimate the political/social weight of this phenomenon, and oversimplify guns' importance in their role as one of the central threads in the web of how we protect our freedom from falling into the womb of aggressive, abusive, coldly calculating governmental herding of masses.



The real point of widespread gun ownership, in my opinion, does not come down to citizens actually successfully staging a military coup, but rather in the sheer messiness that the threat of this kind of conflict imposes upon the bureaucratic structure of a government. Gun ownership does not stand alone in it's importance as a deterrent to government overreach, but rather as one of the greatest complicating factors among the many that combine to give weight to our freedom as an extant, singular but multifaceted entity which does more than simply protest in its own interest: it insists upon it.



And basing a society on the idea that people don't need to be willing to die for their freedom while giving them the illusion that their votes count...is ALSO lulling people into a false sense of security and power, and a much better one, if you actually think about the consequences and resulting mentalities.

Well, since Americans have been living in a free and democratic country for a long time they seem to underestimate how precious and fragile civil rights and liberties are and how easy it actually is to close down democracy through a process of erosion or lead a whole nation down a path of decreasing freedoms and increasing government power and abuse of power. While it's not the first time in American's history that the government has given themselves extraordinary (emergency) power and restriced or took away some rights and liberites during that period of time Americans should keep in mind that this "crisis", the so-called war on terror, does (unlike the former ones) not have an end.

You may be right that I underestimate the political/social weight but don't you think that since essential civil rights and liberties have already been taken away or eroded, curbed, restricted like the right of privacy or to dissent without fear of government spying/intimidation, the freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, the right to due process, the freedom of speech and press, saying that "... of how we as a society can maintain our freedom..." is highly debatable?
And don't you think, considering that the government has also been putting themselves above the law, giving themselves absolute impunity from accountability or punishment (this includes voluminous numbers of CIA members, military or other security personnel etc.) and classifying its own crimes/wrongdoings, it can also be said that widespread gun ownership has neither worked as a deterrent to government overreach nor has it been one of its greatest complicating factors so far.

However, I do not see Americans falling into the womb of an aggressive, abusive, coldly calculating governmental that is herding the masses but rather the closing down of democracy through the process of erosion (even though the latter has the potential of ending in the former, not likely though).

As for "giving them the illusion that their votes count...", while one definitely gets the impression that ones vote does not count I still think it does but just electing the right leaders / representatives, then just leaning back and expecting that they will do the right thing is of course not enough. Democracy is not guaranteed for all times and extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. It's actually pretty easy to track Senators' and Representative's votes and one even can get informed about upcoming votes, so it's easy to email them before they vote if something is of high priority ...be it for oneself or in general.
One also can email (or call) them and express ones displeasure if they supported a bill that they clearly shouldn't have supported. If just enough people do only that it would remind them that they are only in that position of power because the people gave it to them and since they all love their power and want to be re-elected they will think twice how they vote and might be willing to work on reversing one or the other thing, if not kick the fuckers out. Unfortunately it's unlikely that the masses will actively participate in democracy (apathy, amongst others) which plays in the government's hand or may also be their plan cos the more are driven away from politics the easier it becomes for them.

The question remains, though, (at least to me) how "guns can take all 3 back" when the last decade has shown that widespread gun ownership neither worked as a deterrent to government overreach nor did it prevent government from corroding the fundamentals of democracy or was one of the biggest complicating factors in the process ...and actually successfully staging a military coup is off the table too.

[Korpsy Knievel]

LauriesCrusador: Despite a poor initial impression of you I'm enjoying your sociopolitical thoughts. This point is key:

"since Americans have been living in a free and democratic country for a long time they seem to underestimate how precious and fragile civil rights and liberties are and how easy it actually is to close down democracy through a process of erosion or lead a whole nation down a path of decreasing freedoms and increasing government power and abuse of power."

Combined with erosion of civic consciousness and involvement plus general cultural cretinization, all else in America's future follows from this.

[LauriesCrusador]

LauriesCrusador: Despite a poor initial impression of you I'm enjoying your sociopolitical thoughts. This point is key:

"since Americans have been living in a free and democratic country for a long time they seem to underestimate how precious and fragile civil rights and liberties are and how easy it actually is to close down democracy through a process of erosion or lead a whole nation down a path of decreasing freedoms and increasing government power and abuse of power."

Combined with erosion of civic consciousness and involvement plus general cultural cretinization, all else in America's future follows from this.

Thanks.

Considering what a US without a functional democratic system / that doesn't operate under democratic principles at home – an unrestrained US, so to speak – means for the rest of the world it's even more important that Americans start getting into the game... and those few who already do need all support/help they can get.

[ArchonAlarion]

VICE documentary of Wilson's Gun Printing published today:

[InvisibleJim]

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

Cheers Alexander Hamilton, it's almost as if you never realised weaponry would advance beyond the musket. It's a shame bullets were your kryptonite.

[ArchonAlarion]

The US Department of Defense Trade Controls has decided to claim control of the information for the Liberator pistol. http://defcad.org/

Too bad the Streisand effect is kicking in and the file is now being zealously seeded on the Pirate Bay (People formerly uninterested in the file are now downloading/seeding on principle). Wilson just baited the government into making gun control a first amendment issue. Genius.

[DaftPunk]

I think gun abuse in the USA is not a legal problem it's more a society problem

[rat1]

It is not paranoid to assume that governments can operate outside of the best interests of its citizens in drastic ways.

Discuss.

9/11
/end

[Park]

[Singu]

So, when are you Americans going to rebel against your authoritarian government?

[Alomoes]

Our right to rebel is an inalienable right that does not require guns. That being said, I don't mind people owning guns for a hobby. I think it is a pretty cool hobby to have.

[Singu]

Our right to rebel is an inalienable right that does not require guns.

Yeah, that's my point. Rebelling with guns isn't going to be successful anyway, since the government has much bigger weapons. So the only rebellion that's going to be successful is through organized protest.

[End]

Yeah, that's my point. Rebelling with guns isn't going to be successful anyway, since the government has much bigger weapons. So the only rebellion that's going to be successful is through organized protest.

Depends on how far the loyalist factions are willing to go and just how many people and weapons the "Rebels" have on their side. If we were to, say, have Civil War 2.0 occur in the U.S. we run into two major considerations. The first is whether or not the average person behind the Nuclear Bomb trigger is willing to just nuke a great deal of America and his/her "fellow Americans" as it were. Maybe a few generations down the line that might be possible but for the foreseeable future someone would simply not be able to sleep with themselves at night if they were to be a passive party to a nuclear genocide and would act to stop it from happening on a large scale (i.e. maybe 2 or 3 nukes get launched, but the rest either don't get launched due to a well timed "fragging" of the commander or get detonated on site as someone essentially throws themselves upon a nuclear hand grenade).

Should the "Nuclear Option" open to the current regime not work out so well for them well... they're fucked. They are ROYALLY fucked (consideration #2, who has the guns, skills and manpower best able to bring those to bear on the field of conventional warfare. Answer? The Conservatives, in SPADES). The rebels will almost certainly be Trump Supporters/rednecks/gun nuts/K-selected country boys spoiling for this fight, etc. In this event well, just look an electoral map by county. The liberals hold the cities and have a population advantage yes. However, as I pointed out in another thread those city slickers haven't the slightest clue as to how to survive out in the country and/or grow/raise their own friggin' food. Thus the critical weakness of the liberals. Without those fucking nukes those hateful deplorable country bumpkins can just starve the liberal enclaves out by just choosing to NOT deliver food to the grocery stores that don't abide by their demands (which will almost certainly include a demand that you praise Jesus for starters and, if the local Christians happen to be Catholic, may require you to learn Latin or something similarly outrageous just to rub salt in the wound ). Oh, just go out there and "take" the food and show them what for says the shitlib? Yeah, not with shooting gangsta style with those Saturday Night specials liberals got they won't. Hell, a fucking Confederate Era muzzle loader can down a human better and at longer range than that POS pea shooter .38 hand gun in the hands of a true hillbilly gun nut. And wouldn't ya know, gun nuts love them their rural property that liberal fools think they can invade and actually manage to occupy effectively!

Basically, you need to objectively have a handle on the situation if things turn to violence. It's all about knowing yourself and your enemy at that point. Sun Tsu, read him if ya wanna get where I'm coming from here.