Funny, that’s what I would have said about people who insist that they are not safe unless they are armed at all times and those who really, really, really need semi-automatic assault weapons to feel safe ever.
58 year old woman who frequently lived alone and traveled around the world with nary a gun, nor a dog
My comments, though sequential to yours, were not directly connected. I was not so much speaking in response to you as just speaking.
As for my life, all civilized men take risks. Civilization is based on those mutually assumed risks, we trust that each other are not bloodthirsty and deranged. Worked pretty well for me so far, as evidenced by my annoying and persistent presence.
Besides, firearms are extraneous to a master of Cringing Mantis Kung Pao!
I need a semi*-automatic “assault weapon” primarily so that I know I don’t live in a country where the government can ban any weapon it thinks the “proles” shouldn’t have. The antis are always saying it’s paranoid to think that we need to be prepared to resist a tyrannical government; banning “assault weapons” IS tyrannical. The government has no intention of oppressing us? Prove it- let law-abiding people keep the weapons that would be the first thing an oppressive government would ban. That or prove that an abiding supermajority of citizens want to relinquish guns by amending the constitution.
*****actually I’d prefer select fire.
Please. You think that your little cache of weapons could withstand the force of the military should the ‘government’ chose to come after you? One helicopter gunship, one drone and you’re done. The end.
maybe we should try arming the police next: U.S. News: Latest Breaking Stories, Video, and Photos on American Politics, Economy, and Society | NBC News
Which is why Stinger anti-aircraft missiles should be legal. 
I made no claims on the probability of winning an armed rebellion; I was commenting on the principle of the thing. So the hoi polloi can’t be trusted with weapons? Sounds like “Shut up and do what you’re told, you goddamn peasant” to me.
Oh. So you endorse the position of Huey Newton and Bobby Seals and the other Black Panthers that black people should arm themselves against The Man? As much as I supported the Black Panther’s empowerment movement, I thought this was a bad idea. Over time, my view has changed, and now I think it was a very bad idea.
:dubious: The UK is no tyranny.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but you will also need at least one fertilizer bomb before the government will take you seriously.
There have been several armed uprisings in U.S. history, and they all lost to the government. But none of them used fertilizer bombs.
As an ideal, yes. I admit the huge difference between theory and practice; I don’t claim to have a flawless plan to achieve Utopia.
Which I confess baffles me. By every theory, the UK should be a tyranny. The persistence of democracy in nations that in principle could disallow any freedom whatsoever, and make it stick, is something I have no explanation for.
. . . OK, can we please get through to the end of 2012 with no more of these?!
Well, maybe a country’s political constitution is less important in that regard than its political culture.
And herein lies the rub. It has become increasingly difficult to trust one’s fellow man to not be bloodthirsty. Heck, we’ve all seen the reprehensible videos of people in places like NYC where a stricken human being is crying out for help as a victim of an accident, only to be stepped on or over by the dystopian masses on their cell phones on their way to work.
I suppose my point is that as to the lives of myself and my children, having a firearm just in case is a preventative measure that aligns with my more cynical view of my fellow man than my dreamy altruistic one. I do believe in gun control. I vehemently oppose gun bans.
Another thing in these “end of world” or “government gets uppity” scenarios that many postulate about (and which I deem highly unlikely or futile) that people might not necessarily consider is a massive natural disaster that may pit man on man. The guns are out there for the taking in such a scenario, as unlikely as it may seem. Looting and raping are not unknown in the wake of such a thing. If my region somehow is scrambling for food after such a disaster and the government is otherwise unwilling or unable to assist…how do I defend my family and my food from starving bands of armed opportunists?
I realize this is unlikely. But we all saw Katrina. A gigantic earthquake in an unprecedented area could produce similar results. I don’t feel paranoia about this, but I’d prefer to be able to muster some defense against the evil that resides in all men.
To me this is crazy talk. Taking it to the extreme, do you really believe you should be able to have a nuclear sub if you can afford it to combat your imaginary tyrannical government? In other news your last statement is a strawman.
What good is a gun in a Katrina?
“Help! I can’t swim!”
“Hold on, I’ll get my gun!”
As to protecting yourself from the evil that resides in men, are you innocent of this evil? Never lost your temper, never made a really stupid mistake? I have. Never been so mad at someone I’d actually shoot them, but that may be more an accident of fate than a ringing testimonial to my character. Likewise, I’ve never mistaken my son for an intruder. But other men have. They probably weren’t as smart as me. But I’ve yet to meet the man so smart he never has a spasm of stupid.
Who protects other men from the evil that resides in me? Me.
This peasant has guns-to shoot feral hogs and raccoons. This peasant believes that weaponary designed specifically to rapid-fire kill other* people* has no place in a civilized society.
Or to take it to the other extreme, do you really believe that the government should be able to ban weapons from society altogether? Or maybe allow muzzle loaders for hunting? And that this somehow won’t eventually end up like every other society in history that forbade the commoners from being armed?
In principle I have no quarrel with a “middle ground”; I’m happy to ban the private possession of nuclear weapons, and I believe a precedent for such already exists in the Constitution. The problem is, how do you guarantee that the middle ground is as far as it’s going to go? If you have a Constitutional-level mandate saying “an abiding supermajority of the people agree to cede this power to the government”, then that’s fine. Provided it’s absolutely understood that that power goes so far, and not a single inch further. A mere congressional law does not provide that guarantee, because it could be changed next year. “Slippery slope” is a real threat, especially since people in favor of actually banning all gunns from society have openly said in the past that their strategy was “gain, hold onto and advance” every precedent for banning guns.
Amazing how you can encapsulate the grand sweep of history in such a simple set of words. Well, maybe “amazing” isn’t quite the word. Were you alive in the 60’s, when some Black Panthers advanced the notion that black people, as an oppressed minority, had both the right and the duty to armed resistance to The Man? Did you approve of that stance?
I’d say that they were successful, because the mere threat that the Panther’s stance might go mainstream was enough to convince 'the Man" that he couldn’t just shit on the black minority forever and get away with it. Or do you really think that non-violent protest was enough to shame the racists into reforming? African-Americans got exactly as much respect for their rights as they were in a position to demand. Good for them!