User Tag List

First 3435152535455 Last

Results 521 to 530 of 561

  1. #521
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Just think of it as an extension of the democratic process. The side with the most guns wins, and as long as the majority can overthrow the government, the system should be perfectly acceptable and well within the bounds of democracy. Call it a failsafe, call it paranoia, but don't say it doesn't work.
    I think the state you try to protect will vanish in the process.

  2. #522
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    That leads me to believe that you are unable explain your own 'arguments'.
    The American Revolution was (by and large) fought, and won, by an armed citizenry (with the help of the French Navy).

    Here is one of my favorite legal quotes:

    The defining character of American constitutional government is its constant tension between security and liberty, serving both by partial helpings of each. In a government of separated powers, deciding finally on what is a reasonable degree of guaranteed liberty whether in peace or war (or some condition in between) is not well entrusted to the Executive Branch of Government, whose particular responsibility is to maintain security. For reasons of inescapable human nature, the branch of the Government asked to counter a serious threat is not the branch on which to rest the Nation's entire reliance in striking the balance between the will to win and the cost in liberty on the way to victory; the responsibility for security will naturally amplify the claim that security legitimately raises. A reasonable balance is more likely to be reached on the judgment of a different branch, just as Madison said in remarking that "the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other...
    - Justice Souter - (Hambdi v. Rumsfeld)

    I am perfectly able to do that. You fail to understand my words: When revolution is necessary, your 'country' is gone, your rights and laws do no longer matter. You cannot have a revolution and afterwards return to business as usual.
    That's kind of the point numb nuts.

    If business as usual was working, revolution wouldn't be necessary.

    You never win the game, you just do a little better each time.

  3. #523
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Just think of it as an extension of the democratic process. The side with the most guns wins, and as long as the majority can overthrow the government, the system should be perfectly acceptable and well within the bounds of democracy. Call it a failsafe, call it paranoia, but don't say it doesn't work.
    The government has nuclear weapons, flamethrowers, bombers, machine guns, and more. All your side has are a few automatic weapons and rifles/handguns.

    The only way to actually even the odds, would be to have private militias have their own nukes, flamethrowers, bombers, and machine guns. Of course, that carries a high risk of political instability and a few units going rogue. Thus, it would never be permitted.

    The truth is, your side has already lost. You just don't realize it yet. You're being allowed to have guns as a symbol, a metaphor for freedom, because guns alone do not pose a real threat to government power anymore. You would just be a thorn in their side, quickly gotten rid of.

    Your gun may allow you to defend yourself against a criminal or a band of thugs, but don't EVER make the mistake of thinking it can protect you from the government.

  4. #524
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The American Revolution was (by and large) fought, and won, by an armed citizenry (with the help of the French Navy).
    So guns should be legal because "the defining character of American constitutional government is its constant tension between security and liberty, serving both by partial helpings of each", although, as Madison said, "the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other"? We are not trying to establish whether 'guns are good' is a truly American concept but whether they are indeed good for the American people. In that respect, your belief is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    That's kind of the point [...]
    Glad we agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    If business as usual was working, revolution wouldn't be necessary.
    Yes.

  5. #525
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    The government has nuclear weapons, flamethrowers, bombers, machine guns, and more. All your side has are some guns are a few automatic weapons and rifles/handguns.
    Our military consists more than 1 million people, but less than 2.

    We have over 80 million gun owning families. Most of whom live in densely populated areas.

    The political blowback from bombing one suberb would be more than our gov't could endure.

    They would have to, using soldiers on the ground, go house to house to remove firearms.

    The logistical implications of having that kind of military presence on US soil are insurmountable.

  6. #526
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Our military consists more than 1 million people, but less than 2.

    We have over 80 million gun owning families. Most of whom live in densely populated areas.

    The political blowback from bombing one suberb would be more than our gov't could endure.

    They would have to, using soldiers on the ground, go house to house to remove firearms.

    The logistical implications of having that kind of military presence on US soil are insurmountable.
    You jerked off while writing this, did you not?

  7. #527
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    In that respect, your belief is irrelevant.
    In so far as they further the American ideal of greater personal liberty, they aren't.

    I was using that quote as an explanation of the argument.

    You knew that, yet still chose to be difficult.

    I think what you consider to be good for the American people, and what Americans think would be good for the American people are two entirely different things.

    The vast majority of Americans, not even just the gun owners, would view your plans as horribly authoritarian, and wouldn't stand for it.

    You will never be able to convince any sane man that you (as a foreigner) knows whats better for him, his countrymen, and his country than he does.

    That assumption, that the educated few should rule the dull masses was tried for the majority of civilized human history...

    It's not working just ask Egypt.

    You jerked off while writing this, did you not?
    Uhh... weird dude.

    Considering that I'm sitting at my office arguing with you while taking care of other tasks, no.

    No I did not.

    Try harder. You'll get off the bench one of these days.

  8. #528
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    In so far as they further the American ideal of greater personal liberty, they aren't.
    See, your founding fathers were smarter than you. Because they knew that what is right for the people today will not necessarily be right for the people tomorrow, they allowed for the constitution to be amended. If one day the majority wants a ban on guns, you will have to obey - or leave for Africa.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I was using that quote as an explanation of the argument.

    You knew that, yet still chose to be difficult.
    I wanted to make sure that you really are as simple-minded as I believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I think what you consider to be good for the American people, and what Americans think would be good for the American people are two entirely different things.

    The vast majority of Americans, not even just the gun owners, would view your plans as horribly authoritarian, and wouldn't stand for it.
    Yes, most people are SJ types.

  9. #529
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    The government has nuclear weapons, flamethrowers, bombers, machine guns, and more. All your side has are a few automatic weapons and rifles/handguns.

    The only way to actually even the odds, would be to have private militias have their own nukes, flamethrowers, bombers, and machine guns. Of course, that carries a high risk of political instability and a few units going rogue. Thus, it would never be permitted.

    The truth is, your side has already lost. You just don't realize it yet. You're being allowed to have guns as a symbol, a metaphor for freedom, because guns alone do not pose a real threat to government power anymore. You would just be a thorn in their side, quickly gotten rid of.

    Your gun may allow you to defend yourself against a criminal or a band of thugs, but don't EVER make the mistake of thinking it can protect you from the government.
    None of those things make any difference in a revolution. You don't need the fanciest toys to win a war, just ask the USA. And I'm perfectly fine with guns being the metaphor. I think they're a great component of the cultural identity for many Americans, so why spoil all the fun?

  10. #530
    figsfiggyfigs
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    How so?
    Really?? You don't see it?

Similar Threads

  1. Teachers stage fake gun attack on kids
    By digesthisickness in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 04:35 PM
  2. I've got issues...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-24-2007, 10:28 PM
  3. Iraq-Bound Soldier Hires Hitman To Shoot Him
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 07:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO