If you’re referring to Damuri Ajashi, please remember that he gloats about the *defeat *of the very measures he claims to support.
You seem to be new here, or at least to this subject, so your lack of preparation can be overlooked.
Not a single revolt against a tyrannical government has ever succeeded? Wait, my history books back in the real world tell a different story.
A constitution, split government, gun rights etc are all hedges against tyranny. Not a difficult concept.
Not any of the ones started by small groups of posturing “patriots” against a modern military in a democratic nation under the rule of law. Which is the sort of “revolt” that I’m talking about here, no matter how assiduously you keep trying to nudge those goalposts.
[QUOTE=octopus]
A constitution, split government, gun rights etc are all hedges against tyranny.
[/QUOTE]
And the constitution, split government, and other non-weapons-related provisions are the only ones that matter in the least when it comes to actually preventing tyranny in the case of a modern democratic society with a modern military.
In the event of actual large-scale tyranny and stasis (which, as I noted, your legally-owned guns aren’t doing a thing to deter or prevent in the face of the far superior might of the government), the official legality of gun possession will be completely irrelevant in the catastrophic collapse of the rule of law altogether.
In the event of insurrection on a more realistic scale (as per the abovementioned Ruby Ridge, Waco and Malheur), your legally-owned guns will merely justify the far superior might of the government in blowing you away faster when you try to provoke a showdown.
As I have often said before, there are many valid and sensible reasons for law-abiding responsible people to choose to own a gun. But “I want to be legally equipped for effectively resisting tyrannical jackbooted thugs in case of apocalyptic disaster where civil society literally collapses into bloody anarchy” and “I like to fantasize about effectively resisting tyrannical jackbooted thugs even in a relatively stable and peaceful society where my small group of deluded losers would be easy meat for the far better-equipped and better-supported government forces” are not among them.
Gun regulation should make sense for the society we’ve actually got, not for the society your dystopian manga comics and sovcit prepper propaganda inspire you to fantasize about having.
Germany was not a modern democracy before a fascist takeover? Things are good until they aren’t.
That said what are your concrete proposals to prevent mass murder?
Wow, more strawmen than a county fair’s scarecrow contest. Thanks Der Trihs, with enemies like you I don’t need support.
You can’t get a decent take-out pizza there.
In fact, the fascist takeover of Germany was accompanied by loosened restrictions on gun ownership and increased possession of guns.
Of course, I’m not claiming that more gun ownership is what made Germany a fascist state. But it’s equally nonsensical to claim (outside of the self-imagined “tyranny fighters’” fantasy scenarios, which are nonsensical anyway) that even more gun ownership would have kept Germany from becoming a fascist state.
Like I said, realistic gun laws need to be designed for the society that actually exists. Not for the fantasy scenario of “oh noes what if our society suddenly becomes a fascist tyranny so we gotta make sure we have enough guns that we can be like Captain America and SAVE OUR FREEEEEEEEDUM!!!”. Keep that kind of argument on the playground where it belongs.
[QUOTE=octopus]
That said what are your concrete proposals to prevent mass murder?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know what effectively prevents mass murder. So when trying to figure out what policies on gun ownership regulation would best support that aim, I’m going to listen to responsible well-informed adults, rather than self-professed “tyranny fighters” obsessed with daydreams about OUR GUNS SAVING US ALL FROM THE FASCIST THUGS OF THE GUMMINT.
Well you do that. I’m going to keep stockpiling ammo in case of zombies! And we each have one vote. Ain’t democracy grand?
So all those Europeans, Canadians, and Australians are helpless against tyranny? I’m sure they’d be surprised to hear that. Or are they just too stupid and dependent on the government health care teat to even do more than bleat when a tyrant comes to power?
Not counting the influence we exert on the votes of others by means of persuasive reasoned arguments, of course.
So please, do keep on telling us all how you need to keep stockpiling ammo in case of zombies and how we need to base our current gun ownership regulations on fantasy someday scenarios of dystopian tyranny and insurrection.
How’d Ireland deal with the UK? Irregular warfare iirc.
What about Syria? Assad had a powerful modern army. To boRRow KimStu’s random emphasis STYLE,** without **RUSSIAN intervention ASSAD would be dragged nekkid THRU the streets of DAMASCUS with a stick up his ass akin to Khadaffi. O M G! How’s that possible against a MODERN army? AGAINST THE GUMMINT!???!
Do the random points of emphasis make this clear?
The fact that the concept of a hedge and multiple constraints on the powers of different groups of people mitigates the risk of tyranny escapes the modern left is perplexing. You guys worship the state whose agents shoot unarmed black men and plant evidence. Who is the real problem? Statists or those who realize that life is complicated and the best way to ensure freedom is not to empower any one institution disproportionately.
And I’m still waiting to read some concrete proposals on how to prevent mass murder.
Maybe the wrong people are just praying harder. I can think of a few “Christians” I know who probably consider this an OK thing, on balance.
They’re first order douche bags, but they exist.
You try to foist a position on me, namely that I’m fine with the regulation of milk. I counter that I’m not fine with that at all. So you make up a bullshit excuse that I don’t complain about the regulation of milk IN A THREAD THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REGULATION OF MILK.
Two lessons you should take from this. First, don’t make up your opponent’s position in a debate. Secondly, don’t try rectify your first attempt by coming up with a flimsy excuse.
Made it clear to whom? By what means? It’s a very hypothetical question, and has nothing at all to do with the topic.
The vast majority of gun owners aren’t convicted serial killers broadcasting their intention to kill again. The odds of the average person being killed in a mass shooting is very small.
It’s a simple choice, freedom or security. I choose freedom. Don’t force your preference for security on me and others like me, we’re not hurting anybody.
So, people who aren’t professional shooters/cullers lost the right to own semi-autos and pump action firearms. And it seems considerable obstacles were thrown up regarding the use of other firearms. That’s what the people in Australia lost. I don’t want to have the same loss.
My guns aren’t killing anybody. Try again.
I’ve not argued that people want regulation for its own sake. I’ve argued that there’s a tradeoff between freedom and security, and I err on the side of freedom.
Wrap yourself in bubble wrap and never go outside for all I care. I’m not forcing my worldview or way of life on you. You are most certainly trying to force your worldview and way of life on me.
I will pray for you, ElvisL1ves.
A few minor inconveniences against 33,000 or so lives and US$500M in hospital costs per year.
Not much of a loss.
When my handgun becomes a sentient human being you’ll have a point. Until then, you’re just trying to besmirch by association.
I’m sure this is suppose to be some great display of wit, but just in case it’s not, how could you possibly interpret my post to mean that?