A Heavily Armed Citizenry Is A Virtue

[NoStateofMind]

Making guns equal to nukes? Only progressive morons with an anti-gun agenda can make this leap of ignorance.

 

[Veliko]

I can't fathom why individuals honestly believe that individual gun ownership is the thin red line between Democracy and a dictatorship.

Pure paranoid fantasy.

Indeed.

The only things the right to bear arms protect, are the infantile fantasies of an intellectual underclass.

 

[Veliko]

Making guns equal to nukes? Only progressive morons with an anti-gun agenda can make this leap of ignorance.

In what way does the 2nd Amendment allow guns, but not nukes?

 

[Muse]

Making guns equal to nukes? Only progressive morons with an anti-gun agenda can make this leap of ignorance.

Equal? Who said equal? If you can't see the analogy you already have the blinders on. And it's more than an analogy, it's a slice of the same pie.

 

[Braznor]

Check out peaceful protesting Delhi students being assaulted by the riot police. They used teargas and batons against peaceful demonstrations. Its alleged the police did dirty work to rouse up trouble at the march. The students were protesting against a brutalized rape of girl. Delhi is full of lowlifes, sons of the elites who have guns. India as a feudal society has not changed past the thousand years.

India is a lawless place and all the criminals have guns anyway. So civilian Indians should have guns. It is should be the right. You never appreciate a gun unless you need one I guess.

 

[Veliko]

Check out peaceful protesting Delhi students being assaulted by the riot police.

Which proves nothing, other than your limited ability to think these things through.

Next!

 

[ShintaiDK]

We had 31 murders here this year. That means a country like the US should have around 1690 murders. Now fill in the blanks 😉

 

[Zargon]

We had 31 murders here this year. That means a country like the US should have around 1690 murders. Now fill in the blanks 😉

Invalid comparison becase you don't have giant shitholes like St Louis, Detroit, and Chicago

and your country is 90% while danes

get some intercultural nonesense going on and see that # climb

seriously though, historically as a countries diversity increases, so does crime. same with % of lower income population

which the US has in spades

we still lower violent crime than other 1st world countries, even though our murder rate is higher

 

[ShintaiDK]

Invalid comparison becase you don't have giant shitholes like St Louis, Detroit, and Chicago

and your country is 90% while danes

get some intercultural nonesense going on and see that # climb

seriously though, historically as a countries diversity increases, so does crime. same with % of lower income population

which the US has in spades

we still lower violent crime than other 1st world countries, even though our murder rate is higher

In 2009 it was 12.1% that was immigants. But I think your post clearly shows why the situation is like it is.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Actually, he makes a valid point. There are areas of the US that are at least as safe as Denmark, despite having a lot more guns. A large percentage of US crimes come from a few areas.

Nothing about guns and violence is simple. There are no clear-cut, pat answers.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If gun rights are about freedom, shouldn't freedom be about more than gun rights? Every time I heard someone talk in very broad general terms about how much they respect and value freedom as a reason they believe in the right to bear arms, I wonder if that person values freedom in other contexts. Because in general, years of paying attention to politics suggest that isn't necessarily the case.

It's very easy to go on and on about freedom (as that article certainly did, get over yourself already, jeez) when it's something you personally like. It's lot harder to live up to your boasting about how much you love freedom when freedom as a principle is the only reason to support something. How many 2nd amendment advocates are such staunch supporters of the 1st, for example? And it's easy to talk about how much you hate government oppression when you dislike the President, but how much overlap do you think existed between 2nd amendment folks and those suggesting various news organizations and Democrats should be tried for treason for daring to disagree with President Bush when he was in charge?

The idea of a well armed citizenry as a way of guaranteeing freedom can certainly be argued. But, IMHO, many of the people making the argument don't have what I would call a tremendous amount of credibility. Depending on the government tyranny involved (say, going after Muslims and "socialists"), I have a hard time imagining the NRA crowd being on the front lines fighting against it.

Maybe this is unfair of me, and maybe I'm wrong about it (and I'm certain there are many exceptions), but my general impression is that the people making the pro-gun arguments are not really the people I'd trust to work against a truly oppressive government if that oppression involved something other than gun rights. And there is nothing wrong with valuing gun rights, but I feel like people should at least be honest about it when that's the primary thing they care about.

My impression is that the opposite applies. If you disagree, note the almost complete disinterest in Diane Feinsteins insistence on violating everyones rights with warrantless wiretaps and insisting that we cannot know if purely domestic calls are being monitored which might allow some objection, yet shes someone who IS the government and we're supposed to trust her and Obama and their kind with gun legislation? I wouldn't worry about a hypothetical challenge by gun owners when we're whored out other established rights for partisan consideration. In short, your concerns are misplaced.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

...Massive Irony...

QFE

 

[Moonbeam]

My impression is that the opposite applies. If you disagree, note the almost complete disinterest in Diane Feinsteins insistence on violating everyones rights with warrantless wiretaps and insisting that we cannot know if purely domestic calls are being monitored which might allow some objection, yet shes someone who IS the government and we're supposed to trust her and Obama and their kind with gun legislation? I wouldn't worry about a hypothetical challenge by gun owners when we're whored out other established rights for partisan consideration. In short, your concerns are misplaced.

I'm not sure they are. I think what he said makes sense and that you also have valid points. The problem for California is that Republican opposition simply does not exist because Californians have evolved beyond the cultural dementia more characteristic of the South and there is little appeal to more rational people. If it's any comfort to you I voted for her Republican opposition because I don't like her politics. Sometimes you just never know who will pop up on the radar as the lesser of two evils.

 

[monovillage]

I'm a dumbass douchebag of a liberal that doesn't know shit about firearms

QFE

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not sure they are. I think what he said makes sense and that you also have valid points. The problem for California is that Republican opposition simply does not exist because Californians have evolved beyond the cultural dementia more characteristic of the South and there is little appeal to more rational people. If it's any comfort to you I voted for her Republican opposition because I don't like her politics. Sometimes you just never know who will pop up on the radar as the lesser of two evils.

As I see it situations aren't mutually exclusive. You'll find people who are so protective of gun ownership that people with violent criminal histories ought to be permitted to possess firearms. I believe those are relatively few. For me it's a mistrust those who seize on emotion and a crisis for an opportunity to assume control, with well thought out regulation as secondary in importance. One could argue that isn't automatically true, but in this case those who cry loudest and most piously are also the vilest and most contemptuous of our fourth amendment rights going so far as to insist that we have no recourse by insisting on our mandated ignorance. Whether republican or democrat of masters. There is no basis for trust, in fact quite the reverse.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

The only problem being you don't have a militia. You have a mob of loose cannons.

 

[Moonbeam]

As I see it situations aren't mutually exclusive. You'll find people who are so protective of gun ownership that people with violent criminal histories ought to be permitted to possess firearms. I believe those are relatively few. For me it's a mistrust those who seize on emotion and a crisis for an opportunity to assume control, with well thought out regulation as secondary in importance. One could argue that isn't automatically true, but in this case those who cry loudest and most piously are also the vilest and most contemptuous of our fourth amendment rights going so far as to insist that we have no recourse by insisting on our mandated ignorance. Whether republican or democrat of masters. There is no basis for trust, in fact quite the reverse.

Logically, I think, your fundamental distrust is of human nature. You don't trust the folk who elect these distrustful politicians because they are representative of them. There is little one can do to save oneself from the insanity of ones neighbors except to love them as much as you can. I believe it is hate that turns good people into monsters and I have control only over myself. The ultimate, unfornutate truth, it seems to me, is that the only thing we can affect is our own attitude. As the Germans said in the trenches of WW1, "Die lage ist hoffnungslos aber nicht ernst".

 

[ShintaiDK]

The only problem being you don't have a militia. You have a mob of loose cannons.

Hehe ye. The job of law enforcement and protection relies on the police and military. If people think they need guns, one or both above is then not functioning the way it should.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehe ye. The job of law enforcement and protection relies on the police and military. If people think they need guns, one or both above is then not functioning the way it should.

You understand, I hope, that conservative thinking does best in low population areas, as you can easily see from the red states and where the red is on the maps. Conservative thinking is a low impact kind of thinking, where your interaction with different types of people is minimized. This is why we see human cultural evolution taking place in the blue areas of high population and high diversity areas. But this also means that conservative folk also live farther away from police protection. You will observe that how people feel about guns is determined by whether those guns are pointed at you or you are pointing them. In the cities people die from guns and in the country they are one's home police. To ban guns where people don't have almost instant police protection is like underfunding the police department.

Naturally, city life would be better if there were no guns in the city, but no guns in the country leaves people vulnerable. Gun laws should perhaps be a matter of local decision.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

blatant intellectual lazyness leading to insults

Here, let me help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

 

[NoStateofMind]

In what way does the 2nd Amendment allow guns, but not nukes?

In what way does the 2nd amendment allow nukes and guns?

Equal? Who said equal? If you can't see the analogy you already have the blinders on. And it's more than an analogy, it's a slice of the same pie.

Wrong. You can'y carry nukes on each person. Nukes did not exist when the second amendment was written. Here is where you say "OMG THE ASSAULT WEAPONS WEREN'T AROUND THEN EITHER"!!!! Like some moronic twat. Making the leap from a musket gun to an automatic weapon would be conceivable but musket to nuke is fucking stretching to fit your agenda. Leaping from guns to nukes is like comparing traveling on a boat in the ocean to travel in space on a rocket. Both are means of travel but in entirely different worlds.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You understand, I hope, that conservative thinking does best in low population areas, as you can easily see from the red states and where the red is on the maps. Conservative thinking is a low impact kind of thinking, where your interaction with different types of people is minimized. This is why we see human cultural evolution taking place in the blue areas of high population and high diversity areas. But this also means that conservative folk also live farther away from police protection. You will observe that how people feel about guns is determined by whether those guns are pointed at you or you are pointing them. In the cities people die from guns and in the country they are one's home police. To ban guns where people don't have almost instant police protection is like underfunding the police department.

Naturally, city life would be better if there were no guns in the city, but no guns in the country leaves people vulnerable. Gun laws should perhaps be a matter of local decision.

Personally I would start by removing guns in the larger cities. Essentially its not different than back in the wild west times:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html

Perhaps some states should be entirely gun free. I cant see why anyone should have a gun on Hawaii for example.

Secondly I would ban any military grade weapon. Seeing people with assault rifles and 50cal weapons is cross the border of insanity.

The constitution reflects a past society. And it could use an overhaul.

 

[Agent11]

The constitution is just fine the way it is, and it is up to the people of Hawaii to decide their own laws. Not you or I.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Personally I would start by removing guns in the larger cities.

They've tried that. It doesn't work.

(Criminals ignore gun laws.. shocking, I know. 🙂 )

Perhaps some states should be entirely gun free.

That will be as successful as making states drug-free has been.

The constitution reflects a past society. And it could use an overhaul.

The constitution has a mechanism in it for making changes -- the amendment process. Anyone who wants to "overhaul" it is welcome to propose amendments.

Getting them passed is another matter.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Logically, I think, your fundamental distrust is of human nature. You don't trust the folk who elect these distrustful politicians because they are representative of them. There is little one can do to save oneself from the insanity of ones neighbors except to love them as much as you can. I believe it is hate that turns good people into monsters and I have control only over myself. The ultimate, unfornutate truth, it seems to me, is that the only thing we can affect is our own attitude. As the Germans said in the trenches of WW1, "Die lage ist hoffnungslos aber nicht ernst".

Trust is a complex simple thing. The concept is straightforward however its application isn't. I trust you. That's a decision I've made, and you've never given me cause to doubt. It's not about agreement, because you and I have different views, but I do trust that you are a thoughtful person of goodwill. I know people who I would trust to watch my children, but what if I learned they beat their own so they had to be treated? If they abuse their most sacred charge, in what should trust be based?

This is how I view those I mention. My distrust is based on the demonstrated willingness to disregard our explicit rights as citizens, and further preventing any recourse. So yes, it is mistrust, but of individuals who have shown reasonable cause to doubt.