Later in life, I moved to Nicaragua. In the mountains of Esteli, I found thirty-year old bullet holes in the walls of shops and homes as I walked the streets. These are left untouched so that they may serve as a reminder of the Sandinista's defeat of the US/ Ronald Reagan-backed Contra. Average men and women (some very young) took up rifles and overthrew the dictator Anastasio Somoza whose army and contra fighters were funded by the US government. I don't highlight this to say that I support the FSLN. I despise socialism and communism, however, when people say it's impossible to fight the US military or its influence, I dare them to say that to a Nicaraguan. You can probably guess what happened immediately after the rebels defeated Somoza...The first thing the new government did was seize all guns and jail or murder all future defectors. While I was living there, FSLN Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega wrote and signed a new law declaring him dictator for life. The exhausted, war-weary Nicaraguans of the 1980's who naively gave up their guns for the promise of safety, security and prosperity had unknowingly relegated the current generation living in 2018 to a life in the poorest country in Central America, a government with total control, no freedom of speech, no free press, secret "undesirables" lists of people who vanish, a land of leaking tin roofs, a completely corrupt and defunct police force and, through almost total disarmament, absolutely no way to rebel against this current horrible dictator in the way their fathers once did.
How about Cuba? Thankfully for them, Castro's revolutionary group, The 26th of July Movement, had access to weapons so they, along with the help of other rebel groups, could over-throw Batista, a dictator who'd destroyed the Cuban constitution. The rebels of Castro's movement thought they were fighting for the return of their constitution and democracy. However, when Castro gained power, he instituted communism and began, slowly at first, the removal of potentially rivalrous groups' weapons until almost all guns on the Island were in the hands of the government, thus preventing rebellion against his control. In a speech in 1960, after a bomb went off nearby, Castro proclaimed, “For every little bomb the imperialists pay for, we arm at least 1,000 militiamen!” With Soviet assistance, the Cuban people organized themselves and formed citizens' militias to defend themselves against a foreign threat. In the following years, guns were removed from civilian possession and power was free to consolidate into what we have today. I think we've seen how that's gone for the Cuban people in the last 60 years. If you doubt it, speak to a Cuban in the US. I also lived in Miami and I can tell you, Cuban-Americans will be happy to explain it to you personally. Or you can wear your Che Guevara t-shirt in support of a true mass-murderer who lined up homosexuals and personally shot them and others not fit for the Marxist ideal.
4. Tell the Afghans of the 1980's that they can't defend themselves with firearms and prevail against the Soviets. Tell the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army that they can't give the US military a run for it's money. Believe me, I despise most of the groups I've mentioned, but I highlight them because people seem to think that the notion of defending ourselves from a sophisticated, national or dictatorial military would be impossible. However, I've highlighted only just a few instances (despite my opinion of their politics or ultimate aims) where virtually untrained fighters with rifles defended their families, homes, property and land from such forces only a few decades ago. This is not ancient history and there is no reason to believe it cannot happen on US soil someday. It's curious that the same people who claim "Trump is literally Hitler" are most often in support of partial or total gun control. 5.Also, the Australian firearms confiscation (forced buyback) argument is a ruse. Gun deaths may have decreased, but homicides actually went up in the immediate years following it and then lowered at exactly the same rate as all other developed nations in the last two decades; including countries who had no such ban. The point is, it did nothing to stop murder. 6.The same can be said about the ten-year "assault weapons" ban in the 90's under Bill Clinton. Part of this law dictated that after ten years, a study must be conducted of its efficacy. Sadly for gun-controllers, this independent study showed that the ban had absolutely no effect on gun violence. That's a secret most on the left don't want you to know. But if you don't believe me, have a look at this New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html
I hope it's becoming clear that the gun is a tool. The wielder has control, not the weapon. Luckily, our revolution resulted in our constitution which eventually, after a civil war and much struggle, resulted in the greatest freedom the world's ever known (sorry Canada and Europe, but you don't have the same freedom of speech that we do, but that's an argument for another day). Support for gun control first gained steam in the US as a way to prevent newly-freed blacks from owning firearms. The list of oppression through the repression of firearms access is true everywhere you look throughout history. I haven't even gotten into the statistics that prove cities and states with stricter gun control have the most gun violence. Why don't the same people who bring up Australia, bring up Switzerland? Gun sales in Europe are surging, especially in Germany and Switzerland as a result of recent terror attacks and the mass arrival of refugees. Why shouldn't they have the right to defend themselves with a firearm? Why shouldn't we have the right to defend ourselves with a handgun or a rifle if we choose? The fact is, rifles are better at defending ourselves in all the situations I listed above.
I want better background checks, and I want increased security in our schools. I also want an armed citizenry because it's our only protection against tyranny. We all agree to gun control of some kind. We draw lines all the time in free societies. Nukes, grenades, machine guns...We all agree of course. I draw the line at semi-auto rifles, shotguns and handguns. Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to? Sadly, there will be the criminally insane who abuse this right and take innocent lives. It hurts me as much as it hurts you, but obviously not as much as it hurts the families of those involved. However, as horrible as it may be to read (and it's not an easy thing to type), I cannot allow the answer to these crimes be the stripping of the right of self-preservation for us and for future generations.
(I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that the Obama administration brokered more weapons sales than any administration since WW2.)
(The man sold guns all over the world while his party does everything they can to chip away at our second amendment. He also sold assault rifles to Mexican gangs through the Fast and Furious operation under his Attorney General Eric Holder, but that's also something the left doesn't concern itself with (not to mention he deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, but again, for some reason, no one seems to be angered by it. Why?) http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html
Thanks for your response. I disagree with your position and conclusion but it's well thought out and articulate and I can respect that. Good stuff.
4.
Tell the Afghans what? That shoulder fired Stinger missiles and anti-aircraft
guns are “firearms?” This is a way oversimplification of the situation in
Afghanistan in 1979 when the Soviet
military invaded and 1989 when they withdrew. You make it sound as if a modern
day Paul Revere sounded the alarm and everyone grabbed a gun and repelled the
infidels. The fact remains that without huge investments in US arms, money and
material and the demise of the Soviet Union, they’d still be there repelling
the Soviet infidels. Now, they’re holding the US at bay but by no means are
they “winning.”
5.
Really? Is that why Australia, and now Norway, have seemed to have doubled down
by expanding their gun bans? And no one on here is arguing that eliminating
guns results in lowert murder rates. There’s always, knives, bats, fists, rope,
cars, rocks, etc. People by their nature are violent. The argument is that
banning AR15 and high capacity magazines reduces the carnage of mass shooting,
and may have an impact in lower their incidence.
6.
Why did you reference an independent study but then link to a commentary that
expounds upon gun violence in general, mostly due to handguns? This thread is
about banning assault weapons. No one is arguing that by banning assault weapons
you’ll stop all gun violence. Others on here have posted all kinds of
statistics that point to more guns result in more gun deaths and that countries
that have strict gun control laws have much less gun violence. It may be in the
gun violence thread but look for benjs multiple posts of gun violence
statistics.
Later in life, I moved to Nicaragua. In the mountains of Esteli, I found thirty-year old bullet holes in the walls of shops and homes as I walked the streets. These are left untouched so that they may serve as a reminder of the Sandinista's defeat of the US/ Ronald Reagan-backed Contra. Average men and women (some very young) took up rifles and overthrew the dictator Anastasio Somoza whose army and contra fighters were funded by the US government. I don't highlight this to say that I support the FSLN. I despise socialism and communism, however, when people say it's impossible to fight the US military or its influence, I dare them to say that to a Nicaraguan. You can probably guess what happened immediately after the rebels defeated Somoza...The first thing the new government did was seize all guns and jail or murder all future defectors. While I was living there, FSLN Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega wrote and signed a new law declaring him dictator for life. The exhausted, war-weary Nicaraguans of the 1980's who naively gave up their guns for the promise of safety, security and prosperity had unknowingly relegated the current generation living in 2018 to a life in the poorest country in Central America, a government with total control, no freedom of speech, no free press, secret "undesirables" lists of people who vanish, a land of leaking tin roofs, a completely corrupt and defunct police force and, through almost total disarmament, absolutely no way to rebel against this current horrible dictator in the way their fathers once did.
How about Cuba? Thankfully for them, Castro's revolutionary group, The 26th of July Movement, had access to weapons so they, along with the help of other rebel groups, could over-throw Batista, a dictator who'd destroyed the Cuban constitution. The rebels of Castro's movement thought they were fighting for the return of their constitution and democracy. However, when Castro gained power, he instituted communism and began, slowly at first, the removal of potentially rivalrous groups' weapons until almost all guns on the Island were in the hands of the government, thus preventing rebellion against his control. In a speech in 1960, after a bomb went off nearby, Castro proclaimed, “For every little bomb the imperialists pay for, we arm at least 1,000 militiamen!” With Soviet assistance, the Cuban people organized themselves and formed citizens' militias to defend themselves against a foreign threat. In the following years, guns were removed from civilian possession and power was free to consolidate into what we have today. I think we've seen how that's gone for the Cuban people in the last 60 years. If you doubt it, speak to a Cuban in the US. I also lived in Miami and I can tell you, Cuban-Americans will be happy to explain it to you personally. Or you can wear your Che Guevara t-shirt in support of a true mass-murderer who lined up homosexuals and personally shot them and others not fit for the Marxist ideal.
Tell the Afghans of the 1980's that they can't defend themselves with firearms and prevail against the Soviets. Tell the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army that they can't give the US military a run for it's money. Believe me, I despise most of the groups I've mentioned, but I highlight them because people seem to think that the notion of defending ourselves from a sophisticated, national or dictatorial military would be impossible. However, I've highlighted only just a few instances (despite my opinion of their politics or ultimate aims) where virtually untrained fighters with rifles defended their families, homes, property and land from such forces only a few decades ago. This is not ancient history and there is no reason to believe it cannot happen on US soil someday. It's curious that the same people who claim "Trump is literally Hitler" are most often in support of partial or total gun control. Also, the Australian firearms confiscation (forced buyback) argument is a ruse. Gun deaths may have decreased, but homicides actually went up in the immediate years following it and then lowered at exactly the same rate as all other developed nations in the last two decades; including countries who had no such ban. The point is, it did nothing to stop murder. The same can be said about the ten-year "assault weapons" ban in the 90's under Bill Clinton. Part of this law dictated that after ten years, a study must be conducted of its efficacy. Sadly for gun-controllers, this independent study showed that the ban had absolutely no effect on gun violence. That's a secret most on the left don't want you to know. But if you don't believe me, have a look at this New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html
I hope it's becoming clear that the gun is a tool. The wielder has control, not the weapon. Luckily, our revolution resulted in our constitution which eventually, after a civil war and much struggle, resulted in the greatest freedom the world's ever known (sorry Canada and Europe, but you don't have the same freedom of speech that we do, but that's an argument for another day). Support for gun control first gained steam in the US as a way to prevent newly-freed blacks from owning firearms. The list of oppression through the repression of firearms access is true everywhere you look throughout history. I haven't even gotten into the statistics that prove cities and states with stricter gun control have the most gun violence. 7. Why don't the same people who bring up Australia, bring up Switzerland? Gun sales in Europe are surging, especially in Germany and Switzerland as a result of recent terror attacks and the mass arrival of refugees. Why shouldn't they have the right to defend themselves with a firearm? Why shouldn't we have the right to defend ourselves with a handgun or a rifle if we choose? The fact is, rifles are better at defending ourselves in all the situations I listed above.
I want better background checks, and I want increased security in our schools. I also want an armed citizenry because it's our only protection against tyranny. We all agree to gun control of some kind. We draw lines all the time in free societies. Nukes, grenades, machine guns...We all agree of course. I draw the line at semi-auto rifles, shotguns and handguns. Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to? Sadly, there will be the criminally insane who abuse this right and take innocent lives. It hurts me as much as it hurts you, but obviously not as much as it hurts the families of those involved. However, as horrible as it may be to read (and it's not an easy thing to type), I cannot allow the answer to these crimes be the stripping of the right of self-preservation for us and for future generations.
8. (I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that the Obama administration brokered more weapons sales than any administration since WW2.)
(The man sold guns all over the world while his party does everything they can to chip away at our second amendment. 9.He also sold assault rifles to Mexican gangs through the Fast and Furious operation under his Attorney General Eric Holder, but that's also something the left doesn't concern itself with (not to mention he deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, but again, for some reason, no one seems to be angered by it. Why?)
7. Because
Switzerland’s gun ownership is a result of compulsory military service where
after you’ve completed your military service, you’re given the option of
keeping your military provided firearm to keep at home as part of the national
defense. Interesting that you didn’t cite Switzerland’s higher than EU average
for suicide by firearm per capita. More guns=more death by guns.
8. Military arms sales is not the same as selling guns to the general populace. You know better but you just had to take a swipe at Obama, didn’t you? Military arms sales is not relevant to this argument. Nice try though.
9.
You realize that Fast and Furious was started under the Bush Administration and
was inherited by the Obama Administration and was, at the time, buried deep
within ATF and not something that Obama and Holder were aware of until it went
south, right? And you realize there were multiple congressional investigations
that resulted in what, exactly? A rebuke, no indictments, no criminal charges,
nothing other than certain individuals within the ATF being called out for
fucking up. Your bias is showing.
So,
your argument, from my perspective, reads like something the NRA or the pro-gun
crowd puts out on their website or blog because as someone else already said,
it boils down to be afraid, be very afraid of your government because it could
become tyrannical some day. In fact, reading up on “democide,” I did come
across some pro-gun blogs that linked to the University of Hawaii study and
referenced the poly-sci professor who brought it back into fashion. He seems to
be a darling of the pro-gun crowd.
Why now, at this stage in your life, did you become a gun owner? Trump's dictatorial tendancies? His white nationalism appeal? Or your nightmare of a tyrannical government seems too close for comfort? Or something else?
My apologies for the haphazard way I posted a response to october22 but the length of his posts made it impossible to quote and respond. Here are all my counter arguments in one place.
1.No, the 2A was formulated
to create a “well regulated militia” and as such, “the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” At the time, the colonists didn’t
have an army or militia to defend them against native aggressors (Native Americans,
and who could blame them?), foreign advisories or an armed insurrection. Further,
firearms during colonial times were an object of luxury, highly prized and
valued because they were expensive. The average Joe couldn’t afford one.
Therefore, the militia obligation fell to the monied classes. It wasn’t until
mass produced, manufactured and interchangeable parts became available that the
“common” man, in large numbers, could possess firearms. Remember, the vast
majority of colonists at the formulation of the 2A were basically indentured
servants, given passage in exchange for a period of servitude or as a cheap
source of labor to settle the New World. They were poor, too poor to afford a
luxury item like a firearm.
2. Your use of “Democide” works against you as it clearly states that democratic governments with strong democratic systems and institutions in place are not susceptible to “democide.” Perhaps that’s why we haven’t seen it in Great Britain or the majority of EU countries post WW2? Also, it is interesting to note that you reference the former Soviet Union, Cuba and Nicaragua but not the US involvement in the Philippines when providing examples of democide. Is it because US involvement in the Philippines was a “foreign” engagement and it didn’t happen on the US mainland or is it your attempt to paint the US in a better light? Cuba was overthrowing the shackles of a western colonial dictator and not some democratically elected and free populace that was squashed by their representative government or one that was democratically elected and then overthrown in a coup. Batiste in Cuba, in some ways, was as bad as or worse than Castro. They were both assholes but what’s the saying, “At least he’s our asshole.” The same holds true for Nicaragua and Samoza. Again, a popular uprising to overthrow a brutal, western backed dictator. Eventually turning into a proxy war in the last vestiges of the Cold War. And of course there’s payback with those sweeping into power trampling over the rights and mistreating those who previously held power. People suffered under a brutal dictatorship for 30 years and revenge is unfortunate. But to imply that if only the people had had guns, if everyone were armed, Ortega would not have been swept into power is an oversimplification of the geo-politics of the time. And its interesting to note, that upon the breakup of the Soviet Union and leftist Nicaragua’s loss of its patron, Daniel Ortega was elected president in democratically held elections.
3. I’ve heard this argument before, that if the “subjugated
races”, Jews, had had firearms, they could have staved off the Holocaust.
However, while the Jews were disarmed, the German people were not and in fact,
gun restrictions were loosened for Germans. Further, Hitler had the support of
ethnic Germans and the populace. Any uprising or resistance by the Jews would
most likely have been crushed. Again, see above as it relates to Czechoslovakia.
Hitler encouraged and at times forcibly relocated ethnic Germans from the
Fatherland to settle and Germinize other areas of Europe, Poland and
Czechoslovakia notably and he also considered these areas part of the
Rhineland. No doubt, with German occupation, they were protected and resented.
What happened after WW2 is not surprising and that doesn’t make it right. But I’ll
ask, who here in the US is a “subjugated race” or is likely to be? This isn’t a
thread about banning all firearms, just weapons made for the battlefield that
are amazingly effective at killing people. Someone else has already stated that
if the tyrannical Government, that you seem to fear so much, really wanted to
take your guns, they have the airforce and armor to do it. I’ll state it again,
the US in 2018 is not 1930’s Nazi Germany, 1940’s Soviet Union, 1950’s Cuba,
1960’s-1970’s Vietnam or Cambodia, or 1980’s Latin America.
4. Tell the Afghans what? That shoulder fired Stinger missiles and anti-aircraft guns are “firearms?” This is a way oversimplification of the situation in Afghanistan in 1979 when the Soviet military invaded and 1989 when they withdrew. You make it sound as if a modern day Paul Revere sounded the alarm and everyone grabbed a gun and repelled the infidels. The fact remains that without huge investments in US arms, money and material and the demise of the Soviet Union, they’d still be there repelling the Soviet infidels. Now, they’re holding the US at bay but by no means are they “winning.”
5.
Really? Is that why Australia, and now Norway, have seemed to have doubled down
by expanding their gun bans? And no one on here is arguing that eliminating
guns results in lowert murder rates. There’s always, knives, bats, fists, rope,
cars, rocks, etc. People by their nature are violent. The argument is that
banning AR15 and high capacity magazines reduces the carnage of mass shooting,
and may have an impact in lower their incidence.
6.
Why did you reference an independent study but then link to a commentary that
expounds upon gun violence in general, mostly due to handguns? This thread is
about banning assault weapons. No one is arguing that by banning assault weapons
you’ll stop all gun violence. Others on here have posted all kinds of
statistics that point to more guns result in more gun deaths and that countries
that have strict gun control laws have much less gun violence. It may be in the
gun violence thread but look for benjs multiple posts of gun violence
statistics.
7. Because
Switzerland’s gun ownership is a result of compulsory military service where
after you’ve completed your military service, you’re given the option of
keeping your military provided firearm to keep at home as part of the national
defense. Interesting that you didn’t cite Switzerland’s higher than EU average
for suicide by firearm per capita. More guns=more death by guns.
8. Military arms sales is not the same as selling guns to the general populace. You know better but you just had to take a swipe at Obama, didn’t you? Military arms sales is not relevant to this argument. Nice try though.
9.
You realize that Fast and Furious was started under the Bush Administration and
was inherited by the Obama Administration and was, at the time, buried deep
within ATF and not something that Obama and Holder were aware of until it went
south, right? And you realize there were multiple congressional investigations
that resulted in what, exactly? A rebuke, no indictments, no criminal charges,
nothing other than certain individuals within the ATF being called out for
fucking up. Your bias is showing.
So,
your argument, from my perspective, reads like something the NRA or the pro-gun
crowd puts out on their website or blog because as someone else already said,
it boils down to be afraid, be very afraid of your government because it could
become tyrannical some day. In fact, reading up on “democide,” I did come
across some pro-gun blogs that linked to the University of Hawaii study and
referenced the poly-sci professor who brought it back into fashion. He seems to
be a darling of the pro-gun crowd.
Why now, at this stage in your life, did you become a gun owner? Trump's dictatorial tendancies? His white nationalism appeal? Or your nightmare of a tyrannical government seems too close for comfort? Or something else?
7. Because
Switzerland’s gun ownership is a result of compulsory military service where
after you’ve completed your military service, you’re given the option of
keeping your military provided firearm to keep at home as part of the national
defense. Interesting that you didn’t cite Switzerland’s higher than EU average
for suicide by firearm per capita. More guns=more death by guns.
8. Military arms sales is not the same as selling guns to the general populace. You know better but you just had to take a swipe at Obama, didn’t you? Military arms sales is not relevant to this argument. Nice try though.
9.
You realize that Fast and Furious was started under the Bush Administration and
was inherited by the Obama Administration and was, at the time, buried deep
within ATF and not something that Obama and Holder were aware of until it went
south, right? And you realize there were multiple congressional investigations
that resulted in what, exactly? A rebuke, no indictments, no criminal charges,
nothing other than certain individuals within the ATF being called out for
fucking up. Your bias is showing.
So,
your argument, from my perspective, reads like something the NRA or the pro-gun
crowd puts out on their website or blog because as someone else already said,
it boils down to be afraid, be very afraid of your government because it could
become tyrannical some day. In fact, reading up on “democide,” I did come
across some pro-gun blogs that linked to the University of Hawaii study and
referenced the poly-sci professor who brought it back into fashion. He seems to
be a darling of the pro-gun crowd.
Why now, at this stage in your life, did you become a gun owner? Trump's dictatorial tendancies? His white nationalism appeal? Or your nightmare of a tyrannical government seems too close for comfort? Or something else?
Relevant to your point, this opinion piece was in our local rag this week:
"Kids are getting slaughtered with assault weapons. It’s tragic, yet we continue to hear that assault weapons and high capacity magazines are necessary to stand up against a tyrannical government.
The U.S. government put Japanese-Americans in internment camps. What did our fellow Americans do?
The U.S. Army held a trial for 63 African American soldiers, all represented by one lawyer. Thirteen soldiers were hung two weeks later without an appeal. Who stood up to this arbitrary legal forum?
Congress passed the Indian Removal Act. The Cherokee Nation filed a case in our Supreme Court and secured its rights as a sovereign nation, yet President Andrew Jackson ignored the decision and continued to remove natives from their homes. Their “Trail of Tears” west led to 4,000 dead. Any Constitutional defenders react?
What about slavery? The Fugitive Slave Act? Dred Scott v. Sandford?
We don’t step up during times of actual tyranny. We tolerate oppression of our fellow humans. We spend billions of dollars on building a giant military and federal law enforcement agencies. What is an assault weapon going to do against a tank, plane, boats with really big guns, and nuclear bombs? Is opposing gun control really about preventing tyranny?
You may have other arguments against gun control, but the “standing up to tyranny” doesn’t stand."
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
1.No, the 2A was formulated
to create a “well regulated militia” and as such, “the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” At the time, the colonists didn’t
have an army or militia to defend them against native aggressors (Native Americans,
and who could blame them?), foreign advisories or an armed insurrection. Further,
firearms during colonial times were an object of luxury, highly prized and
valued because they were expensive. The average Joe couldn’t afford one.
Therefore, the militia obligation fell to the monied classes. It wasn’t until
mass produced, manufactured and interchangeable parts became available that the
“common” man, in large numbers, could possess firearms. Remember, the vast
majority of colonists at the formulation of the 2A were basically indentured
servants, given passage in exchange for a period of servitude or as a cheap
source of labor to settle the New World. They were poor, too poor to afford a
luxury item like a firearm.
2. Your use of “Democide” works against you as it clearly states that democratic governments with strong democratic systems and institutions in place are not susceptible to “democide.” Perhaps that’s why we haven’t seen it in Great Britain or the majority of EU countries post WW2? Also, it is interesting to note that you reference the former Soviet Union, Cuba and Nicaragua but not the US involvement in the Philippines when providing examples of democide. Is it because US involvement in the Philippines was a “foreign” engagement and it didn’t happen on the US mainland or is it your attempt to paint the US in a better light? Cuba was overthrowing the shackles of a western colonial dictator and not some democratically elected and free populace that was squashed by their representative government or one that was democratically elected and then overthrown in a coup. Batiste in Cuba, in some ways, was as bad as or worse than Castro. They were both assholes but what’s the saying, “At least he’s our asshole.” The same holds true for Nicaragua and Samoza. Again, a popular uprising to overthrow a brutal, western backed dictator. Eventually turning into a proxy war in the last vestiges of the Cold War. And of course there’s payback with those sweeping into power trampling over the rights and mistreating those who previously held power. People suffered under a brutal dictatorship for 30 years and revenge is unfortunate. But to imply that if only the people had had guns, if everyone were armed, Ortega would not have been swept into power is an oversimplification of the geo-politics of the time. And its interesting to note, that upon the breakup of the Soviet Union and leftist Nicaragua’s loss of its patron, Daniel Ortega was elected president in democratically held elections.
3. I’ve heard this argument before, that if the “subjugated
races”, Jews, had had firearms, they could have staved off the Holocaust.
However, while the Jews were disarmed, the German people were not and in fact,
gun restrictions were loosened for Germans. Further, Hitler had the support of
ethnic Germans and the populace. Any uprising or resistance by the Jews would
most likely have been crushed. Again, see above as it relates to Czechoslovakia.
Hitler encouraged and at times forcibly relocated ethnic Germans from the
Fatherland to settle and Germinize other areas of Europe, Poland and
Czechoslovakia notably and he also considered these areas part of the
Rhineland. No doubt, with German occupation, they were protected and resented.
What happened after WW2 is not surprising and that doesn’t make it right. But I’ll
ask, who here in the US is a “subjugated race” or is likely to be? This isn’t a
thread about banning all firearms, just weapons made for the battlefield that
are amazingly effective at killing people. Someone else has already stated that
if the tyrannical Government, that you seem to fear so much, really wanted to
take your guns, they have the airforce and armor to do it. I’ll state it again,
the US in 2018 is not 1930’s Weimar Germany, 1940’s Soviet Union, 1950’s Cuba,
1960’s-1970’s Vietnam or Cambodia, or 1980’s Latin America.
4. Tell the Afghans what? That shoulder fired Stinger missiles and anti-aircraft guns are “firearms?” This is a way oversimplification of the situation in Afghanistan in 1979 when the Soviet military invaded and 1989 when they withdrew. You make it sound as if a modern day Paul Revere sounded the alarm and everyone grabbed a gun and repelled the infidels. The fact remains that without huge investments in US arms, money and material and the demise of the Soviet Union, they’d still be there repelling the Soviet infidels. Now, they’re holding the US at bay but by no means are they “winning.”My apologies for the haphazard way I posted a responsde to october22 but the length of his posts made it impossible to quote and respond. Here are all my counter arguments in one place.
5.
Really? Is that why Australia, and now Norway, have seemed to have doubled down
by expanding their gun bans? And no one on here is arguing that eliminating
guns results in lowert murder rates. There’s always, knives, bats, fists, rope,
cars, rocks, etc. People by their nature are violent. The argument is that
banning AR15 and high capacity magazines reduces the carnage of mass shooting,
and may have an impact in lower their incidence.
6.
Why did you reference an independent study but then link to a commentary that
expounds upon gun violence in general, mostly due to handguns? This thread is
about banning assault weapons. No one is arguing that by banning assault weapons
you’ll stop all gun violence. Others on here have posted all kinds of
statistics that point to more guns result in more gun deaths and that countries
that have strict gun control laws have much less gun violence. It may be in the
gun violence thread but look for benjs multiple posts of gun violence
statistics.
7. Because
Switzerland’s gun ownership is a result of compulsory military service where
after you’ve completed your military service, you’re given the option of
keeping your military provided firearm to keep at home as part of the national
defense. Interesting that you didn’t cite Switzerland’s higher than EU average
for suicide by firearm per capita. More guns=more death by guns.
8. Military arms sales is not the same as selling guns to the general populace. You know better but you just had to take a swipe at Obama, didn’t you? Military arms sales is not relevant to this argument. Nice try though.
9.
You realize that Fast and Furious was started under the Bush Administration and
was inherited by the Obama Administration and was, at the time, buried deep
within ATF and not something that Obama and Holder were aware of until it went
south, right? And you realize there were multiple congressional investigations
that resulted in what, exactly? A rebuke, no indictments, no criminal charges,
nothing other than certain individuals within the ATF being called out for
fucking up. Your bias is showing.
So,
your argument, from my perspective, reads like something the NRA or the pro-gun
crowd puts out on their website or blog because as someone else already said,
it boils down to be afraid, be very afraid of your government because it could
become tyrannical some day. In fact, reading up on “democide,” I did come
across some pro-gun blogs that linked to the University of Hawaii study and
referenced the poly-sci professor who brought it back into fashion. He seems to
be a darling of the pro-gun crowd.
Why now, at this stage in your life, did you become a gun owner? Trump's dictatorial tendancies? His white nationalism appeal? Or your nightmare of a tyrannical government seems too close for comfort? Or something else?
Well stated and put forward. I'm interested to see the response and hope it's not dismissed as just speculation and no one can know for sure.
Hmmm... I read it and complimented you, but then I noticed I missed the piece of it where you took some cheap shots at me and made it personal again. I think we'll just leave it here. Best of luck to you
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
4. Tell the Afghans what? That shoulder fired Stinger missiles and anti-aircraft guns are “firearms?” This is a way oversimplification of the situation in Afghanistan in 1979 when the Soviet military invaded and 1989 when they withdrew. You make it sound as if a modern day Paul Revere sounded the alarm and everyone grabbed a gun and repelled the infidels. The fact remains that without huge investments in US arms, money and material and the demise of the Soviet Union, they’d still be there repelling the Soviet infidels. Now, they’re holding the US at bay but by no means are they “winning.”
5. Really? Is that why Australia, and now Norway, have seemed to have doubled down by expanding their gun bans? And no one on here is arguing that eliminating guns results in lowert murder rates. There’s always, knives, bats, fists, rope, cars, rocks, etc. People by their nature are violent. The argument is that banning AR15 and high capacity magazines reduces the carnage of mass shooting, and may have an impact in lower their incidence.
6. Why did you reference an independent study but then link to a commentary that expounds upon gun violence in general, mostly due to handguns? This thread is about banning assault weapons. No one is arguing that by banning assault weapons you’ll stop all gun violence. Others on here have posted all kinds of statistics that point to more guns result in more gun deaths and that countries that have strict gun control laws have much less gun violence. It may be in the gun violence thread but look for benjs multiple posts of gun violence statistics.
See links:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.24378797c1f2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/22/the-real-reason-congress-banned-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked/?utm_term=.543d0598b296
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
8. Military arms sales is not the same as selling guns to the general populace. You know better but you just had to take a swipe at Obama, didn’t you? Military arms sales is not relevant to this argument. Nice try though.
9. You realize that Fast and Furious was started under the Bush Administration and was inherited by the Obama Administration and was, at the time, buried deep within ATF and not something that Obama and Holder were aware of until it went south, right? And you realize there were multiple congressional investigations that resulted in what, exactly? A rebuke, no indictments, no criminal charges, nothing other than certain individuals within the ATF being called out for fucking up. Your bias is showing.
So, your argument, from my perspective, reads like something the NRA or the pro-gun crowd puts out on their website or blog because as someone else already said, it boils down to be afraid, be very afraid of your government because it could become tyrannical some day. In fact, reading up on “democide,” I did come across some pro-gun blogs that linked to the University of Hawaii study and referenced the poly-sci professor who brought it back into fashion. He seems to be a darling of the pro-gun crowd.
Why now, at this stage in your life, did you become a gun owner? Trump's dictatorial tendancies? His white nationalism appeal? Or your nightmare of a tyrannical government seems too close for comfort? Or something else?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1.No, the 2A was formulated to create a “well regulated militia” and as such, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” At the time, the colonists didn’t have an army or militia to defend them against native aggressors (Native Americans, and who could blame them?), foreign advisories or an armed insurrection. Further, firearms during colonial times were an object of luxury, highly prized and valued because they were expensive. The average Joe couldn’t afford one. Therefore, the militia obligation fell to the monied classes. It wasn’t until mass produced, manufactured and interchangeable parts became available that the “common” man, in large numbers, could possess firearms. Remember, the vast majority of colonists at the formulation of the 2A were basically indentured servants, given passage in exchange for a period of servitude or as a cheap source of labor to settle the New World. They were poor, too poor to afford a luxury item like a firearm.
2. Your use of “Democide” works against you as it clearly states that democratic governments with strong democratic systems and institutions in place are not susceptible to “democide.” Perhaps that’s why we haven’t seen it in Great Britain or the majority of EU countries post WW2? Also, it is interesting to note that you reference the former Soviet Union, Cuba and Nicaragua but not the US involvement in the Philippines when providing examples of democide. Is it because US involvement in the Philippines was a “foreign” engagement and it didn’t happen on the US mainland or is it your attempt to paint the US in a better light? Cuba was overthrowing the shackles of a western colonial dictator and not some democratically elected and free populace that was squashed by their representative government or one that was democratically elected and then overthrown in a coup. Batiste in Cuba, in some ways, was as bad as or worse than Castro. They were both assholes but what’s the saying, “At least he’s our asshole.” The same holds true for Nicaragua and Samoza. Again, a popular uprising to overthrow a brutal, western backed dictator. Eventually turning into a proxy war in the last vestiges of the Cold War. And of course there’s payback with those sweeping into power trampling over the rights and mistreating those who previously held power. People suffered under a brutal dictatorship for 30 years and revenge is unfortunate. But to imply that if only the people had had guns, if everyone were armed, Ortega would not have been swept into power is an oversimplification of the geo-politics of the time. And its interesting to note, that upon the breakup of the Soviet Union and leftist Nicaragua’s loss of its patron, Daniel Ortega was elected president in democratically held elections.
3. I’ve heard this argument before, that if the “subjugated races”, Jews, had had firearms, they could have staved off the Holocaust. However, while the Jews were disarmed, the German people were not and in fact, gun restrictions were loosened for Germans. Further, Hitler had the support of ethnic Germans and the populace. Any uprising or resistance by the Jews would most likely have been crushed. Again, see above as it relates to Czechoslovakia. Hitler encouraged and at times forcibly relocated ethnic Germans from the Fatherland to settle and Germinize other areas of Europe, Poland and Czechoslovakia notably and he also considered these areas part of the Rhineland. No doubt, with German occupation, they were protected and resented. What happened after WW2 is not surprising and that doesn’t make it right. But I’ll ask, who here in the US is a “subjugated race” or is likely to be? This isn’t a thread about banning all firearms, just weapons made for the battlefield that are amazingly effective at killing people. Someone else has already stated that if the tyrannical Government, that you seem to fear so much, really wanted to take your guns, they have the airforce and armor to do it. I’ll state it again, the US in 2018 is not 1930’s Nazi Germany, 1940’s Soviet Union, 1950’s Cuba, 1960’s-1970’s Vietnam or Cambodia, or 1980’s Latin America.
4. Tell the Afghans what? That shoulder fired Stinger missiles and anti-aircraft guns are “firearms?” This is a way oversimplification of the situation in Afghanistan in 1979 when the Soviet military invaded and 1989 when they withdrew. You make it sound as if a modern day Paul Revere sounded the alarm and everyone grabbed a gun and repelled the infidels. The fact remains that without huge investments in US arms, money and material and the demise of the Soviet Union, they’d still be there repelling the Soviet infidels. Now, they’re holding the US at bay but by no means are they “winning.”
5. Really? Is that why Australia, and now Norway, have seemed to have doubled down by expanding their gun bans? And no one on here is arguing that eliminating guns results in lowert murder rates. There’s always, knives, bats, fists, rope, cars, rocks, etc. People by their nature are violent. The argument is that banning AR15 and high capacity magazines reduces the carnage of mass shooting, and may have an impact in lower their incidence.
6. Why did you reference an independent study but then link to a commentary that expounds upon gun violence in general, mostly due to handguns? This thread is about banning assault weapons. No one is arguing that by banning assault weapons you’ll stop all gun violence. Others on here have posted all kinds of statistics that point to more guns result in more gun deaths and that countries that have strict gun control laws have much less gun violence. It may be in the gun violence thread but look for benjs multiple posts of gun violence statistics.
See links:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.24378797c1f2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/22/the-real-reason-congress-banned-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked/?utm_term=.543d0598b296
7. Because Switzerland’s gun ownership is a result of compulsory military service where after you’ve completed your military service, you’re given the option of keeping your military provided firearm to keep at home as part of the national defense. Interesting that you didn’t cite Switzerland’s higher than EU average for suicide by firearm per capita. More guns=more death by guns.8. Military arms sales is not the same as selling guns to the general populace. You know better but you just had to take a swipe at Obama, didn’t you? Military arms sales is not relevant to this argument. Nice try though.
9. You realize that Fast and Furious was started under the Bush Administration and was inherited by the Obama Administration and was, at the time, buried deep within ATF and not something that Obama and Holder were aware of until it went south, right? And you realize there were multiple congressional investigations that resulted in what, exactly? A rebuke, no indictments, no criminal charges, nothing other than certain individuals within the ATF being called out for fucking up. Your bias is showing.
So, your argument, from my perspective, reads like something the NRA or the pro-gun crowd puts out on their website or blog because as someone else already said, it boils down to be afraid, be very afraid of your government because it could become tyrannical some day. In fact, reading up on “democide,” I did come across some pro-gun blogs that linked to the University of Hawaii study and referenced the poly-sci professor who brought it back into fashion. He seems to be a darling of the pro-gun crowd.
Why now, at this stage in your life, did you become a gun owner? Trump's dictatorial tendancies? His white nationalism appeal? Or your nightmare of a tyrannical government seems too close for comfort? Or something else?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Relevant to your point, this opinion piece was in our local rag this week:
America is all talk when it comes to standing up to tyranny
"Kids are getting slaughtered with assault weapons. It’s tragic, yet we continue to hear that assault weapons and high capacity magazines are necessary to stand up against a tyrannical government.
We don’t step up during times of actual tyranny. We tolerate oppression of our fellow humans. We spend billions of dollars on building a giant military and federal law enforcement agencies. What is an assault weapon going to do against a tank, plane, boats with really big guns, and nuclear bombs? Is opposing gun control really about preventing tyranny?