Probably not going to be some fantasy where liberals get to save us from ourselves either, and be vindicated in their aversion to guns and gun ownership. So, now that we’ve dispensed with the strawmen, could we get back to our regularly scheduled rant about guns and why liberals need to continually ask why people ‘need a gun’? Perhaps with liberals actually asking the question, then, oh I don’t know, sitting back and letting gun owners explain their reasoning without immediately bringing up Red Dawn fantasies or calling gun owners fetishists and such? Just a thought…
Really? So I can just walk on to your farm, and help myself to your garden, and you won’t use force to prevent me from eating your produce? Because that is the same thing as enjoying the benefits of society without paying taxes. If you want the tomatoes, you have to pay for them.
Furthermore - economic freedom is indistinguishable from any other kind of freedom. When you argue that the rich have corrupted the system by using their power to gain favorable tax rates and whatever else it is you’re worried about, you’re really arguing that the US is not truly “free”.
And so, when you hear people you probably dismiss as “gun nuts” talking about “I need my guns because they are my last resort once we live in an America that is no longer free”, you may not realize it, but these people are the first ones who will listen to you if economic inequality in the US continues to get worse.
Once Regan convinced the poor to vote for “family values” instead of their own economic interests as they had in the past, they lost the fight. This is where politics has been stuck for the last 20 years, and both parties are entirely beholden to corporate interests. Own all the guns you want it won’t make a difference. It’s an illusion of power.
This is just confusing the issue. Of course I am happy to pay some taxes.
I am happy to pay for government services I directly consume, as well as government services that indirectly benefit me. I am even willing to pay for government services that benefit all of society and only benefit me in the most nebulous manner.
However, the government also spends money wastefully. They spend money by giving contracts to incompetent cronies. They spend money on regulation that is ineffective, or worse, regulation that is counter-productive and actually makes problems worse.
The problem is that the government can force me to pay for things that I do not want, and worse, for things that I think actively harm the country, and I cannot withdraw my support for these things by not paying taxes, like I can by telling Capital One (for example) “fuck you, you bastards, you suck and you’re not getting my fucking money.”
If I think your tomatoes are harming the country, I can buy them from someone else, or grow my own, or just not eating fucking tomatoes. I am not forced to buy tomatoes from you. I am forced to pay taxes to the government, regardless of whether I approve of what they are doing with the money or not.
The fact that the government can force you to do things against your will is why there is a threat of tyranny. In a free society, you are not obligated to pay money to any rich individual or company against your will, and people who truly care about freedom oppose any law that would require such a thing. Your “tyranny of the rich” could not be enforced without the consent and cooperation of the government. Which is why I really don’t think we’re on opposite sides of this argument. You can use guns against tyranny, regardless of where it comes from.
Yeah, it’s a shame the Constitution overlooked that, and failed to provide for representation of those paying the tax. The same way it protects the rights of gun owners and those who express opinions I disagree with. Yeah, this country sucks.
Yes, and the state of things today is how things will be forevermore.
Oh, wait.
Yes, which is why people are very concerned about the Constitution, and refer to it as a protection against tyranny, and why most discussion of tyranny starts with ways in which the Constitution is violated. I agree with you, I love the Constitution! It protects our rights and freedoms, including gun rights! It doesn’t allow you to ban guns because you don’t like them! Are you turning into a Constitutionalist now?
The past few posts have simply been explaining why tyranny by a government is far likely than tyranny by private corporations in a free society, and that in any case, if anything comparable to “tyranny by the rich/private corporations” evolved, it would be indistinguishable from tyranny by the government anyway, and just as viable a cause for armed revolution. Which is why you (I presume) liberals should really support gun rights, as a bulwark against a tyranny by the rich.
How would you know? You seem to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you support, I see no reason to hold me to a higher standard.
Please explain which parts of the Constitution I do not support. Note that I’ve never said anything about present situation in the US. We are simply discussing a hypothetical future “tyranny” which would necessitate an armed revolution. You and angry ed are the ones that launched this hijack into economic liberty, essentially by saying “Oh yeah, well what about a tyranny of the rich, your precious guns won’t do anything about that will they??”, and I have responded as best I could, despite the fact that this is only a distraction from the original topic and doesn’t negate my points in the slightest.
And I note that you have neglected to continue the original discussion, in which you claimed gun rights are irrelevant because citizens would never stand a chance in an armed revolution, and I challenged your assertion. I take it by your lack of response that you are conceding on those points, and that you now agree armed citizens could stand up to a hypothetical future tyrannical government?
The parts that authorize spending on programs you do not personally agree with, and the collection of taxes from you to pay for them..
Licensing just introduces another anti-gun law, a law against possessing a gun without a license. Zero deterrent to people who decide to break the law. At most, you’d net a tiny number of people caught breaking that law before they committed an already felonious action with a gun. You’re trying to prevent a criminal behavior by banning an instrument that facilitates that behavior- almost always a losing proposition.
Look, you are not reading my posts very carefully, and not taking the time to think about what I say before responding. You are just assuming that I’m wrong and irrational (and, I note, picking the weakest point in each post to respond to while ignoring the rest). I am actually trying to have a serious discussion here and consider your points honestly. Hell, I have actually just advocated an armed revolution against the rich! Believe me when I say that is not something that comes naturally to me.
I was talking about why a government might hypothetically be tyrannical, and why the nature of government poses a threat of tyranny, and why it is somewhat ludicrous to compare a hypothetical tyrannical government to the bunch of greedy consumer goods companies we currently have in the US. I am not saying the current US government is tyrannical, merely that the nature of government (when abused) can lead to tyranny. Hell, you and ed are the ones who implied the current situation in the US is comparable to tyranny, not me!
Upon re-reading my post, I can see why you may have gotten that impression, and I apologize, it was poorly worded.
I really need to get back to work. I will return later.
Returning the point of guns - regardless of the origins of tyranny - guns are a defense against tyranny, be it tyranny of the majority, tyranny by a dictator, or tyranny of the rich. Which is why both liberals and conservatives should support gun rights.
Feinsten had carried a concealed weapon?
Oh, snap!They did overlook that. Which is odd, considering it was a Revolutionary War motto.
Tell me where the Constitution says taxpayers must be represented in Congress. Because teenagers, immigrants, felons and foreigners would beg to differ, in addition to women and minorities at other times in our history. Representation is absolutely not guaranteed to taxpayers and many have not been and are not currently represented.
That’s the lamest defense of tax protesters I’ve ever heard.
Every word you speak on a phone or send via email or post anywhere online is recorded and analyzed. So how could I have that impression, I wonder.
All your guns do is let lunatics shoot people randomly. Your not defending anything, stop deluding yourself.
Sure. In California, no less, where it’s next to impossible for the average citizen to get one. Her arguments about stopping terrorists using explosives with her handgun seeem strangely similar to stopping the military, with their tanks and jets, with just rifles, too. I don’t blame her though, the world’s a dangerous place, and some chance is better than no chance.
Apparently to avoid blatant hypocrisy, she’s since given up her permit.
Kind of reminds me of this:
Ah, the underlying motivation behind a gun control advocate, laid bare. If only we could get some senator riled up enough to blurt that out on live TV. It would save everyone a lot of trouble.