Steve wrote:The idea of citizens holding arms to keep the government in check is paradoxical unless there are issues at the ballot box. Can anyone offer up a possible scenario where guns wielded by regular citizens could have a beneficial influence on how a country operates where those regular citizens also have adequate access to the ballot box?

At the time the second amendment was written the US was very new, lacked financial systems with which to fund a standing army, and was surrounded by well established nations with powerful militia - England, France, Holland. They were trying to form alliances to meet these needs without giving away the farm, literally. So they encoded the local citizenry to keep and bear arms to protect the constitution so the US could survive. It made sense then.

Now we have a failing Republican party struggling to gerrymander its electoral districts so it gets more influence than it deserves assuming each persons vote counts equally, and is now considering gerrymandering the electoral college to the same end.

If you ask me these Republicans are messing with the ballot box, and I for one can only see this ending in a civil war. But lets put that aside for now. Lets just try and come up with any possible scenario where a regular citizen could usefully raise up his weapons rather than deal with his issues at the ballot box?

Bear in mind, if any group of citizens were to take this step they would initially be opposed by their local police, who would then turn to the boys at the ATF, who would then turn to the full might of the strongest military force on the planet complete with nuclear capability. The only way to do this is under a civil war scenario where the government forces themselves are divided, which will only happen when there has been a failure at the ballot box.

So again I ask - can anyone offer up even one possible scenario where the citizens might meaningfully raise up against their own government?

And given all of this, WTF is left of the second amendment?

The second should be repealed immediately, if not sooner.

At some point the US has to take the leap and jump into the future where a gun-free society would benefit everyone, save for the gun makers. But hey, when the auto emerged and took the place of horse drawn vehicles many wagon builders and wheelwrights were thrown out of work. The price of progress.

Of course this leap into the future has to be attended by economic changes that eliminate poverty and the wretched living conditions that inner city dwellers face and which give rise to criminal behavior.

The future asks for a vision, not a continuation of the status quo. If it's to be true to its history and its promise, the US has to envision a better future, a more enlightened society, a safer more stable and much less violent culture, otherwise it will risk falling backward and becoming backward until its an armed camp that won't be any fun to live in, except for the gun makers.

Where are the visionaries?

I sure don't see any here.

And why must the guns go? Why can't we address the poverty and inequality that is the root problem, and leave the law-abiding to possess guns?

Why does the argument always have to start - well, first ban all the guns, then we'll talk about everything else that should be done?

Aca wrote:NRA gets full support from Family Research council and Liberty Counsel

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/religio ... ol_battle/

Yes, they get the support of some real dipshits.

That doesn't make them completely bad - unless you think that poisoning the well is a valid debate technique.

Weaver wrote:

Aca wrote:NRA gets full support from Family Research council and Liberty Counsel

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/religio ... ol_battle/

Yes, they get the support of some real dipshits.

That doesn't make them completely bad - unless you think that poisoning the well is a valid debate technique.

bollocks

It is a thread about NRA being a "bunch of f*ing idiots". If they are or not, is still a matter of discussion for some. I just informed that NRA has support from two of the, well, interesting organisations.

You can make of that what you want, but it is info, nothing else

Weaver wrote:And why must the guns go? Why can't we address the poverty and inequality that is the root problem, and leave the law-abiding to possess guns?

Why does the argument always have to start - well, first ban all the guns, then we'll talk about everything else that should be done?

maybe because they are the most obvious part of the problem that is easiest to sort out with some decent gun control laws?

Less dead people around whilst we figure out the rest. Seems like a good idea to me.

Steve wrote:

Now we have a failing Republican party struggling to gerrymander its electoral districts so it gets more influence than it deserves assuming each persons vote counts equally, and is now considering gerrymandering the electoral college to the same end.

If you ask me these Republicans are messing with the ballot box, and I for one can only see this ending in a civil war.

Indeed, by the gun advocates' own arguments, since the Republican Party clearly and openly tried to suppress the vote in the last Presidential election, we the people should have the right to round up these tyrants and execute them.

OK, now we've gone completely beyond stupid, into the realm of the utterly absurd.

Rational skepticism my ass.

Weaver wrote:And why must the guns go? Why can't we address the poverty and inequality that is the root problem, and leave the law-abiding to possess guns?

Why does the argument always have to start - well, first ban all the guns, then we'll talk about everything else that should be done?

When I wrote "The second should be repealed immediately, if not sooner" I should have added "and other more cogent law enacted to provide for gun ownership among traditional gun owners like hunters and private security guards ..."

The transformation of American society to a more enlightened situation in which violent behavior isn't celebrated and guns are not felt to be needed for self-protection is a fairly long term project, ten, twenty, thirty years. It doesn't have to begin precisly or exclusively on completely eradicating gun ownership, that's just one aspect of it and it might well be phased to suit progress on the economic and social and entertainment fronts.

First the country needs a vision that articulates this better future and sets it forth as an achieveable goal that's gained through a comprehensive process of doing things and making changes. Those things and those changes have to be orchestrated so they work together in complimentary ways that moves the nation forward along a sensible path of maturation.

I readily admit this is asking a lot, mainly because we're not used to having to do things like this or in this way, but I think all it takes is some leadership to show the way and to inspire people to both act and change and contribute. We possess the wherewithall and the brains to get this kind of thing done, the missing ingredient is leadership, and we might not ever get it as long as our leaders remain bogged down in their internecine bickering and political machinations, almost completely sidetracked from the real issues we face, like climate change, economic security, sustainability ... and too many guns.

I think there's are enormous untapped creative energies and intellectual and scientific strengths that could be unleashed to forge this kind of evolution in American life, IF there was some leadership on these matters, which unfortunately doesnt appear to be forthcoming. I mean, we have Speaker Boehner of the House proclaiming "Make abotion illegal this year!" when in fact abortion has been legal under Roe V. Wade for the past 40 years and is settled law, and the country hasn't fallen apart at the seams because of it. And yet Mr. Boehner wants us to beat our brains out trying to turn back the clock.

Woe is us if that's going to pass for leadership.

Weaver wrote:And why must the guns go? Why can't we address the poverty and inequality that is the root problem, and leave the law-abiding to possess guns?

Why does the argument always have to start - well, first ban all the guns, then we'll talk about everything else that should be done?

Who said it was first? And what difference does this make to any argument for or against if it is fi8rst or not first?

Steve wrote:

Weaver wrote:And why must the guns go? Why can't we address the poverty and inequality that is the root problem, and leave the law-abiding to possess guns?

Why does the argument always have to start - well, first ban all the guns, then we'll talk about everything else that should be done?

Who said it was first? And what difference does this make to any argument for or against if it is fi8rst or not first?

I have assumed Weaver was responding to my comments that "the second should be repealed immediately," to which I have responded, expressing my sentiment a bit more comprehensively.

Weaver wrote:OK, now we've gone completely beyond stupid, into the realm of the utterly absurd.

Rational skepticism my ass.

Is this in reference to this comment about Republicans gerrymandering leading to civil war? I really do hope it is absurd, but the only way it can be so is if voting works by valuing every vote equally and everyone working to make voting accessible to as many voters as possible. ANY messing with that is a nudge toward a civil war. Especially when you couple that inclination with the RKBA folks. I know there is diversity within both groups, and I accept my comment is hyperbolic. But it is done because that is the inevitable result of that kind of thinking.

Meanwhile, lets be clear. I am not opposed to guns. I am opposed to seeing Americans slaughtered on a daily basis at a rate far beyond that of its military personnel when engaged in hot wars. How can this slaughter by guns be possible except we have the most fucked up gun laws imaginable?

I would seriously expect any NRA member to be front and center to get this slaughter under control. The slightest hesitation suggests to me that person is the wrong sort be allowed access to firearms on the grounds of a complete failure in the responsibility that goes along with the privilege of gun ownership.

Steve wrote:

Weaver wrote:OK, now we've gone completely beyond stupid, into the realm of the utterly absurd.

Rational skepticism my ass.

Is this in reference to this comment about Republicans gerrymandering leading to civil war? I really do hope it is absurd, but the only way it can be so is if voting works by valuing every vote equally and everyone working to make voting accessible to as many voters as possible. ANY messing with that is a nudge toward a civil war. Especially when you couple that inclination with the RKBA folks. I know there is diversity within both groups, and I accept my comment is hyperbolic. But it is done because that is the inevitable result of that kind of thinking.

Meanwhile, lets be clear. I am not opposed to guns. I am opposed to seeing Americans slaughtered on a daily basis at a rate far beyond that of its military personnel when engaged in hot wars. How can this slaughter by guns be possible except we have the most fucked up gun laws imaginable?

I would seriously expect any NRA member to be front and center to get this slaughter under control. The slightest hesitation suggests to me that person is the wrong sort be allowed access to firearms on the grounds of a complete failure in the responsibility that goes along with the privilege of gun ownership.

But ... but ... but ... (cough, cough) LaPierre did suggest a way to "get the slaughter under control," by (cough, cough) arming school teachers!

A complete abdication of the responsibility to which you refer and an utter kow-towing to the money mad death machine.

We should do a poll on the 23 items on Obama's "gun control" agenda, which do, after all, take aim at reducing the slaughter.

Let's see which of us support that notion and which don't.

Blood wrote:

Steve wrote:

Now we have a failing Republican party struggling to gerrymander its electoral districts so it gets more influence than it deserves assuming each persons vote counts equally, and is now considering gerrymandering the electoral college to the same end.

If you ask me these Republicans are messing with the ballot box, and I for one can only see this ending in a civil war.

Indeed, by the gun advocates' own arguments, since the Republican Party clearly and openly tried to suppress the vote in the last Presidential election, we the people should have the right to round up these tyrants and execute them.

Clearly in some quarters democracy is being abandoned in favor of something else.

Random people can be trusted with any kind of human-killing tool but not with a frigging vote?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0xLbhWsUfE[/youtube]

proudfootz wrote:

Blood wrote:

Steve wrote:

Now we have a failing Republican party struggling to gerrymander its electoral districts so it gets more influence than it deserves assuming each persons vote counts equally, and is now considering gerrymandering the electoral college to the same end.

If you ask me these Republicans are messing with the ballot box, and I for one can only see this ending in a civil war.

Indeed, by the gun advocates' own arguments, since the Republican Party clearly and openly tried to suppress the vote in the last Presidential election, we the people should have the right to round up these tyrants and execute them.

Clearly in some quarters democracy is being abandoned in favor of something else.

Random people can be trusted with any kind of human-killing tool but not with a frigging vote?

That's certainly one description of it that fits.

The abandonment of democracy happens one small increment at a time as the envelope gets nudged a bit wider. But over time and in given political and economic contexts, it can wreak havoc upon our attempts to govern sanely. System can become so corrupted, so captured, so bought off they just stop doing their job. They become scams. Take one look at the Minerals Management Agency, under who's jurisdiction BP was deep-water drilling in the Gulf. We know what hapened there, perhaps the worst environmental disaster America's ever suffered.

The present situation is mainly characterized by the radicalization of the Republican party, which has shifted so far to the right that Ronald Reagan would be considered a moderate or even liberal-leaning, and Nixon a Democrat. This didn't happen by accident. Certain people made it happen, the ascendence of the Tea Party was engineered by the religious right, Pat Robertson's 700 Club and others of that ilk, a few intellectual participants, many wonks in the Pentagon and in the polity, some flag Officers in the military. Not a tight conspiracy, but a rather loose amalgamation.

It is a manifestation of the Pentacostal world view, evangelical America; which conflicts with science and history and human nature at almost every turn. They believe God intends for them to rule America, that they are here to clean up the country and get it back to God's image, clean of its depraved ways: homosexuality, abortion, sloth, welfare queening, gender neutral marriage, doping and gambling and goin' to the Superbowl, and oh yeah, drinkin' too much and playing all that loud music.

These people are serious. They have lots of political clout, lots of money. Robertson owns and runs the wold's largest television network, bigger than NBC, ABC, and CBS and FOX combined. He communicates with millions of Americans every Sunday. And he does interview segments on his 700 Club show in which he has various apologists for his views offer up supposedly intelligent sounding explanations. It's all propaganda.

There are others in this mix who cheer the real guys on, Limbaugh, Hannity, Ann Coulter, Glen Beck, whipping up the crowd.

The Tea Party elected 60-odd members to the House in 2010. I think their number remained about the same in the 2012 election. They joined another 30 Republicans who were already in the same ideological bag. So far, that group of about 100 members in the House has managed to stop or prevent every legislative move Obama has tried, first in their "one-term President" campaign and now in their "just make him look bad" mode.

This is painfully damaging to the governance of the country, power struggles always are, especially when they become intense and embittered as they have become. I mean, Leader Boehner standing out there on the weekend pronouncing that "we'll make abortion illegal this year!" after the trouncing they took in the 2012 female vote and knowing full well abortion has been legal since Roe V. Wade in 1973 and is settled law. Who the hell did Boehner think he was talking too?

The God fearing Pentacostals, evangelical America, who are on the warpath to come and take your rights.

People worry about Muslims when the real threat is right here in evangelical America.

The irony is that rather than a malign government, it's more likely to be a militia-man draped in the flag with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other kicking in your door at 2 in the morning.

I can sympathise with people wanting to arm themselves against other unhinged citizens - which is where the whole issue gets a bit circular: ""I need a gun because the dominionist nutter next door has one".

One way of breaking that cycle is to say "I need the gun taking off the dominionist nutcase who lives next door" - hence this thread.......

Salinger wrote:

jaroge wrote:For every guy who is emboldened by the gun in his pocket, there is likely another guy who is afraid to pull out the gun in his pocket for fear of actually having to use it

If you're afraid to use a gun, why would you own one? If anything, having a person in that scenario would be just as dangerous because they may not know how to operate it and could fire it accidentally.

Like Babel said, claiming that guns don't empower their owners weakens the argument that they're necessary for self-defense.

Because having to shoot someone, regardless of the reason is a scary proposition. There are many things to be considered. just because police officers and soldiers carry firearms, doesn't mean they are itching to go shoot at people and have shoot outs. I am sure most officers who have engaged in shootouts have reported fear and panic when they have been forced to defend their lives. Being afraid to do something but excepting that you may have to at some point is vastly different than being afraid to EVER do it at all.

I fail to see how this 'weakens' anything.

Steve wrote:

jaroge wrote:While I do find this talk of 'tryannical governments' a little unreal, it is important to note that throughout history, particularely the last hundred or so years, Democide appears to be one of the greatest causes of murder, eclipsing all others. To dismiss this as a possibility is to completely ignore the historical record.

But what good are guns in this fight? Does a gun vote?

Not only does it not vote, but it doesnt murder people either. What does voting have to do with anything?

mcgruff wrote:

jaroge wrote:To make your case you would have to show the net balance of the former to be significantly higher than the latter.

Actually, he doesn't. If we were arguing with a creationist, the correct response would be to tell them to go away and read some books. You can't talk meaningfully about a subject you know nothing about.

We are not responsible for your similarly narrow-minded approach to the subject and your wilful ignorance of easily discovered facts about guns.

The same facts that 77 pages later on this thread no one here has been able to present...... ?

95Theses wrote:It does seem that the arguments against gun control are driven almost entirely by fear

Fear that someone will break in and kill you
Fear that someone will break in and rape you
Fear that someone will rob you in the street
Fear that you will be attacked by a wild rabid pig
Fear that the governement will attack and kill you
Fear that mutant killer chickens will fire their eye lazors at you

Just fear fear irrational fear.

It does seem that arguments for gun control are driven by fear
-fear that someone will shoot up your workplace
-fear that guns go around killing people
-fear that an armed person is ready to explode into a murderous rampage at any minute
etc etc.....

It is precisely this fear mongering put forth buy gun control advocates. All you would need to do is show that gun-control laws save lives. There is no need for all the BS. After that is established, then a reasonable discussion can be made on whether its worth encroaching on people's rights any further or not. Maybe it is? but its odd that no one can make the case.....