The high price of freedom.

ananda · Oct 4, 2015

Trogdor the Burninator said:
So, according to the guns=freedom people, what they should be doing is arming themselves and shooting it out with police. Perhaps, if enough police are wounded or killed, the government will give in and stop oppressing them. I mean, that is essentially the guns=freedom argument, right?

And yet, I'm willing to bet that not a single person who uses the freedom argument would support that outcome.

Why not? If they do so, and can back themselves with enough defensive capabilities, they can in effect create their own nation, and gain a form of freedom, and will have the opportunity to create their own police force that is more amenable to their cause.

ananda · Oct 4, 2015

quatona said:
Apart from the fact that in these days and ages you don´t overthrow a government - which has tanks and WMD´s to its disposal - by pointing your shotgun at them.

That's why the military is for external threats, and peace officers are for internal threats, and the People should have the same capabilities as peace officers in case the People should decide to change the government, after which the military should follow.

quatona · Oct 4, 2015

ananda said:
That's why the military is for external threats, and peace officers are for internal threats, and the People should have the same capabilities as peace officers in case the People should decide to change the government, after which the military should follow.

And, of course, an oppressive government is keeping to those rules.
Plus, you make it sound like "the People" were a monolithic block.

Ana the Ist · Oct 4, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
Overall I'm more distressed by the stupidity of mankind than their untimely deaths. It is the failure to correct this deliberate stupidity that assures future generations of the same untimely deaths, and other avoidable misfortunes.

How would you correct this "stupidity"?

Ana the Ist · Oct 4, 2015

quatona said:
And, of course, an oppressive government is keeping to those rules.
Plus, you make it sound like "the People" were a monolithic block.

Yea...that answer pretty much blew my mind.
"Of course the military wouldn't be involved...they're for "external" threats".

"People should have the same firepower as the police..."
Is that the goal? An arms race with your local sheriff or police department? Police are always going to push for a firepower advantage over the common citizen. How else would you expect them to do their jobs?

Ana the Ist · Oct 4, 2015

ananda said:
Why not? If they do so, and can back themselves with enough defensive capabilities, they can in effect create their own nation, and gain a form of freedom, and will have the opportunity to create their own police force that is more amenable to their cause.

This is a fantasy...it wouldn't happen in real life.

fat wee robin · Oct 4, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
We have more important problems to deal with than gun control. It only comes to the fore when a horrible event takes place. As I said, the dust will settle, as it always does.

I think if it's at all possible you need to chnge the whole 'root' of your society based on extreme individualism where everything is extreme .There is too great a divide between rich and poor ,too many are alienated ,there is too much cynicism ,too much ignorance ,
ambition is directed towards making money being 'famous' .All empty rituals .The States needs to relook it's whole cultural foundations from top to bottom ,and you need to stop voting for self interested types ,and vote for more sober honest citizens .If not I don't think the country has any future . And as for guns, they are part of this neurotic ,uncaring frightening society the Americans have created .By making a more
people oriented culture ,by engaging in simpler activities and creating communities where people are not treated like dirt if they are not rich or famous but involved you automatically reduce fear and 'outsiders' .

ananda · Oct 4, 2015

Ana the Ist said:
This is a fantasy...it wouldn't happen in real life.

It's happened countless times down through history, that's how we have the nations we have today.

ananda · Oct 4, 2015

quatona said:
And, of course, an oppressive government is keeping to those rules.
Plus, you make it sound like "the People" were a monolithic block.

"The People" is a monolithic block of whatever size - it indicates a group of people which decided to band together to repel a certain authority which they perceive as illegitimate.

Ana the Ist · Oct 4, 2015

ananda said:
It's happened countless times down through history, that's how we have the nations we have today.

Not really...no.

I might be wrong though, can you give an example?

ananda · Oct 4, 2015

Ana the Ist said:
Not really...no.

I might be wrong though, can you give an example?

The American Revolution?

AceHero · Oct 4, 2015

quatona said:
Apart from the fact that in these days and ages you don´t overthrow a government - which has tanks and WMD´s to its disposal - by pointing your shotgun at them.

If it came down to them staring down an actual tyrannical government...they'd stand no chance.

But that seems to be their ultimate rationale for gun ownership. It's perplexing.

Ana the Ist · Oct 4, 2015

ananda said:
The American Revolution?

The British threw the full weight of their military against the rebellious colonists. That's a pretty big difference between the rebellion you described.

You mentioned a rebellion where the military stayed out of it, and the rebels only had to overthrow local law enforcement authorities.

Calvinist Dark Lord · Oct 4, 2015

quatona said:
Funnily enough, it´s often the same people who complain to no end about the way they are oppressed by the government, the "police state" etc..
Yet we don´t see them overthrowing the government.

Apart from the fact that in these days and ages you don´t overthrow a government - which has tanks and WMD´s to its disposal - by pointing your shotgun at them.

You're right. You don't overthrow a government, or force it to alter it's policies by straight confrontation, and that hasn't been attempted since Desert Storm (Saddam wasn't trying to overthrow the US government, but you get the idea). Instead you initiate asymmetrical warfare against the oppressor military. The goal is to break their will to fight and it has been successful against US Forces since Vietnam and against other armies since at least the time that David went into hiding against Saul.

Incidentally, the only WMD that the US has is nuclear. The US does NOT use lethal chemical or biological weapons. i seriously doubt that the US would nuke it's own cities.

Chicken Little · Oct 4, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
If you're alive you haven't paid anything. If your loved one is killed by a gun you will pay whether you are willing or not.

I am alive because of the high price my ancestors paid to make sure I made it to this day.

ananda · Oct 4, 2015

Ana the Ist said:
The British threw the full weight of their military against the rebellious colonists. That's a pretty big difference between the rebellion you described.

You mentioned a rebellion where the military stayed out of it, and the rebels only had to overthrow local law enforcement authorities.

That was not my specific post you quoted, I was responding to this one.

Ana the Ist · Oct 4, 2015

ananda said:
That was not my specific post you quoted, I was responding to this one.

I read the context of your post. What part of it did I get wrong?

ananda · Oct 4, 2015

Ana the Ist said:
I read the context of your post. What part of it did I get wrong?

My "American Revolution" comment was a response to your comment on my comment that "guns=freedom" (which you quoted), not to my comment (which you didn't quote) to quatona about military vs peace officers.

OldWiseGuy · Oct 4, 2015

Mister_Al said:
Through the years I've heard of people being beheaded with butcher knives, beaten to death with a hammer, killed with hatchets, stabbed to death or throats cut with a knife, others are poisoned, others are pushed out of windows, others are drowned, some are strangled to death or suffocated, while others are killed with guns. These types of acts have been going on for centuries and no one has found a way to stop them from happening yet. If someone wants to kill somebody he/she will find a way to do it.

Guns are not the problem. The fact is that sooner or later we must accept the reality that there are some problems that just don't have a solution and live with it.

Alan

You've nailed it!

Ana the Ist · Oct 4, 2015

Calvinist Dark Lord said:
You're right. You don't overthrow a government, or force it to alter it's policies by straight confrontation, and that hasn't been attempted since Desert Storm (Saddam wasn't trying to overthrow the US government, but you get the idea). Instead you initiate asymmetrical warfare against the oppressor military. The goal is to break their will to fight and it has been successful against US Forces since Vietnam and against other armies since at least the time that David went into hiding against Saul.

Incidentally, the only WMD that the US has is nuclear. The US does NOT use lethal chemical or biological weapons. i seriously doubt that the US would nuke it's own cities.

Part of the reason that strategy works is logistical...shipping weapons and soldiers overseas and setting up bases over there is expensive. That isn't a problem when fighting at home...nor is the problem of "losing support for the war."

As for chemical weapons...you've never heard of napalm and white phosphorus?

The high price of freedom.

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

"God"? What do you mean??

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Newbie

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

Aggressively serene!

Early Buddhist

Veteran

Aggressively serene!

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Aggressively serene!

Early Buddhist

Wake me when it's soup.

Aggressively serene!

Similar threads