SubJeff on 18/4/2007 at 16:09
LOL Turtle.
Quote Posted by fett
it's a bit foolish to say "if you were going to rise up against the government, you'd have already done it" when there is currently no strong reason for doing so. . .
. . .Bush has already misconstrued and raped the Geneva conventions to allow torture, even torture of American citizens for suspicion of 'collaboration' - with very vague definitions of what that word means. Notice that there have been no violent protests concerning this, but I suspect that's because there have been no sweeping or publicized arrests of significant number. If that were the case, I'd be willing to bet that we'd see many incidents of armed resistance to this obvious violation of civil rights.
That's what I'm talking about. That he and his crew are still in power is a joke.
Are there any other countries that have a right to bear arms in order to protect themselves against any possible government evils?
What's really sad is these shootings are just going to continue, and I believe they will escalate. When people have the ability to do something someone always will. I think it's a poor trade this possibility for violence in exchange for the ability to resist. Especially with the current culture.
Stitch on 18/4/2007 at 16:19
Quote Posted by Taffer_Boy_Elvis
Well said.
Well said, perhaps, but still irrelevant. People want guns for protection, hunting, and the sense of power they give. Maybe because they're cool, even (sup Monkeysee). The whole armed rebellion against a hostile government angle, on the other hand, is really just an excuse Americans cling to to justify our obsession.
steo on 18/4/2007 at 16:21
I don't believe arms are necessary to rise up to an oppressive government. Passive resistance has in the past been extremely effective at bringing down greatly unpopular governments. Two examples which immediately come to mind are the Indian independance movement led by Ghandi:
Quote Posted by Wikipedia - Indian independance movement
The movement came to a head between 1918 and 1922 when the first series of non-violent campaigns of civil disobedience were launched by the Indian National Congress under the leadership of Mohandas Gandhi — whose methods were to a large extent inspired by the philosophy and methods of Baba Ram Singh, a Sikh who led the Kuka Movement in the Punjab in the 1870s. Gandhi's movement came to encompass people from across India and across all walks of life. These initial civil disobedience movements soon came to be the driving force that ultimately shaped the cultural, religious, and political unity of a diverse nation.
And in post WWI Germany:
Quote Posted by Wikipedia - Weimar Republic
The Kapp Putsch took place on March 13, 1920, involving a group of Freikorps troops who gained control of Berlin and installed Wolfgang Kapp (a right-wing journalist) as chancellor. The national government fled to Stuttgart and called for a general strike. While Kapp's vacillating nature did not help matters, the strike crippled Germany's ravaged economy and the Kapp government collapsed after only four days on March 17.
And as has been said before, what use is even a high powered rifle against tanks and F-16s.
jay pettitt on 18/4/2007 at 16:31
Me thinks it's the constitution that protects the little people from the big bad government, not the second amendment.
steo on 18/4/2007 at 16:36
It happens what with the cracks being so large.
SubJeff on 18/4/2007 at 16:38
But this is just it - it is impossible to tell what's going to happen. A guy without a particularly violent history just snaps one day and oh my look at those shiny shiny guns pow pow pow. It's so easy. Stupidly easy. Background checks only help so much and clearly it's not enough.
Carini on 18/4/2007 at 16:45
Quote Posted by Stitch
People want guns for protection, hunting, and the sense of power they give. Maybe because they're cool, even (sup Monkeysee).
More like this, although not in this order. All of the gun owners I know own their guns for hunting primarily, the sense of power and because they're cool secondary and lastly for protection. The reason I say this is because mostly they own more rifles and shotguns than handguns (handgun hunting is rare) The handguns they do own are for target shooting (because it's fun) Using guns as protection is usually joked about "Just fire a round out of this .357 and you don't have to worry about hitting anything whoever is on the other end will RUN"
Muzman on 18/4/2007 at 17:20
Quote Posted by fett
The civilized system of checks and balances lies in the democratic system whereby each citizen can vote for these leaders. But what if the current leadership decides to do away with that system?
Just a technical nitpick. If your current leadership can do away with the system then, categorically speaking, you don't have a system of checks and balances.
fett on 18/4/2007 at 18:19
I've got to respond to so many posts here, I can't use the 'quote' feature, so forgive me if I fail to credit you:
Quote:
How are the masses, who do not have firearms training, going to protect themselves with a handgun or two against a well armed and trained military or government?
Would the average citizen be able to hit a barn door when given a handgun and an entire clip?
David - I'm not saying they would win, but if the revolutionaries had taken that view, we'd still be paying taxes to fund the British government. ;) (though clearly that's not a hard and fast case of being 'oppressed' which is an argument for another time.) Point is, they felt like they were being oppressed, and a group of merchants and farmers took up arms and defeated a well armed and trained military and government.
Quote:
Well said, perhaps, but still irrelevant. People want guns for protection, hunting, and the sense of power they give. Maybe because they're cool, even (sup Monkeysee). The whole armed rebellion against a hostile government angle, on the other hand, is really just an excuse Americans cling to to justify our obsession.
Stitch - but it's not irrelevant at all because it was said by someone who has absolutely NO obsession with guns at all. In fact, I've never held a handgun in my life - I couldn't load a rifle if you asked me to. I HATE the idea of people having guns in their houses where kids or idiots can get to them, but I also think they are an inevitable evil in the society we live in. In many cases people want them for personal protection (which is totally reasonable depending on the community and competence of the police force), but I think many who own guns for that reason, or for hunting, also have in the back of their minds a 'just in case' mentality because of shit like the Bush administration has gotten away with.
Quote:
Me thinks it's the constitution that protects the little people from the big bad government, not the second amendment.
Quote:
Just a technical nitpick. If your current leadership can do away with the system then, categorically speaking, you don't have a system of checks and balances.
Jay and Muz - I think you're both naive if you think that individuals within the government will self-restrain because of the Constitution or because of checks and balances. Obviously this system has worked for many years, but if an individual or group decides to override those checks and balances, or 'reinterpret' the Constitution (as Bush has done with the Geneva Conventions) how else will they be stopped? Not by citizens writing nice letters about the checks and balances or a protest of people waving copies of the constitution. They *should* be stopped at the voting booth, but failing that, they will be stopped with force of arms.
Muz - I think we're growing toward a point in U.S. government where it is increasingly difficult to elect people of integrity to do the checking and the balancing. Long gone is the notion that 'anyone' can run for president. 'Anyone' can't afford to - it costs millions, and this prohibits the local farmer or business owner from having a realistic shot at direct participation in government which was not the case when those checks and balances were instituted by the founding fathers. Most Americans are highly distressed at the lack of honest, down to earth candidates for whom they can vote. There is a dawning realization that the fox is watching the hen coop (as they say in the south) - in other words, the checks and balances work theoretically as the founding fathers intended, but for want of honest politicians, the population has elected individuals who may not always honor the concept of democracy and balance in government. The system itself isn't flawed in concept, but in execution, particularly in the ridiculous financial obstacles to running for high office.
Didn't you guys ever get your ass kicked on the playground? I got pounded one time by this huge black guy - he probably weighed about 100 lbs. more than me and was at least 3 years older. All his friends were gathered around and I was on my own (being a skinny little white kid).* I could have yelled all day about the school rules, fair engagement, him getting expelled, etc. but we all know that wouldn't have changed a damn thing. However, if I could have suddenly grown 2 ft. taller and put on 100 lbs. to match or at least challenge his strength, I would have had a chance to defend myself. Shitty analogy maybe, but all the arguments I hear in favor of gun control (or banishment) usually assume that the authorities will always play by the rules, and that the police and military will always protect the people rather than oppress them, when history shows this not to be the case at all.
*I know. Me getting my ass kicked in junior high explains alot huh?
