Bowling for Columbine

[Oblivion437]

Well, I may be called or inferred to be stupid by certain members of certain boards or by certain individuals in person, but it matters little. I haven't shot myself or anyone else accidentally, and I handle firearms quite regularly. It's a load of fun if you're a patient sort of person.

[Azred]

Originally posted by John D Harris: I would agree that the average citizen cannot face down a criminal, and are rarely prossecuted if they don't. But there are some citizens that will face down a criminal, and I don't see any reason those that will take action to help should be hamstrung.

Speaking of citizens who will face down criminals, whatever happened to Bernard Getz? ( [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] I think that was his name) He was the guy who shot some muggers on the New York subway, in case the name isn't clearing the dust off the memory.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: Well, I may be called or inferred to be stupid by certain members of certain boards or by certain individuals in person, but it matters little. I haven't shot myself or anyone else accidentally, and I handle firearms quite regularly. It's a load of fun if you're a patient sort of person.

Hey, we may disagree and have certain clashing philosophies and style, but I don't automatically assume that a person who uses guns is stupid, including you. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Like I stated before, regardless of my personal philosophy and expirience, I am for the personal ownership of guns and applaude efforts to educate people in how to use them correctly. I do favor making better guns (particularly handguns), like guns that are more difficult for unauthorized users ( like unattended and untrained children or criminals who get hold of a cop's gun) to handle. I don't think we need new laws to accomplish this, simple consumer demand would suffice.

[Timber Loftis]

IIRC, Getz was acquited. A victory for us all.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: It's a load of fun if you're a patient sort of person.

I agree. I enjoyed the time I had shooting as well. I can understand that.
It's something I'm more than prepared to never do again however, if even one life is saved.

My enjoyment of shooting vs a person living.


No contest.

[Oblivion437]

Well, if you happen to go out to a target range, and fire some shots off from an old revolver at a couple of 20-yd targets, you aren't hurting anyone. I'm not sure the paper is a real fan of you, but your fellow man doesn't have any problems with what you're doing.

Understand that it's Irresponsible gun use that causes wrongful gun deaths.

[Night Stalker]

Dav, gave you a while to see if you were going to elaborate before rebutting.

Originally posted by Davros: Well its a bit hard for me to argue with a feeling or a vague opinion, but I guess you could argue that my belief contrawise is similarly poorly substantiated. I will however try and make some effort to enlarge on that. I do not envision a popular uprising occuring in the US until your people are denied the vote as a right to say how business will be conducted. Until the concession of the vote is withdrawn from the people, the people will remain complacent that no matter how bad a gubbermint is doin, they (1) were responsible for votin them in, and (2) will make damn sure they vote them out at the next opportunity. Popular uprising do not happen in countries with properly democtratic systems. This negates to me the imperative of the 2nd amendment that seems to suggest that an armed society is required to achieve a polite society.

I know that it is hard to argue a vague idea or notion, and I appologise for not elaborating more. I am doing this deliberatly because any planning about overthrowing the gubmint (even if just a mental exercise) is a violation of the Alien and Sedition Act, PATRIOT ACT, Patriot II and a bunch of others. I am not about to commit a felony or provide any "How To" ideas to anyone. I just submitt that it is possible and any versed in tactics and strategy may come up with their own "what if" scenarios.

Tyrranny need not be so blatent that voting rights are suspended. Prior to the US going into Iraq, Saddam Hussein was theoretically voted into power with 100% margins. All that is required is for a vote to not really matter. In a local poll a few weeks ago, a stunning 75% of people polled felt that their vote did not count for anything, that no matter who was voted in or out of office the politicians would do whatever they pleased anyway. Only the names changed, not the system. That is indicative of a population that feels that the governing body has broken faith with it's governed. At this point there aren't too many steps needed to Revolution. Revolution need not be on the violent scale, but it is the last failsafe.

You also mention a "properly democratic government". Not a single 1st world nation today is a democracy. The US was founded as a Representive Repbulic, but that system has been continually corrupted over 200 years. Political Parties and money destroy any semblence of democratic process. If anything existing governments today are shades of plutocracy and socialism.

Also, a corrupt government need not impose it's will upon the populous to suppress Liberty. That's too much effort and makes you look like a bad guy. It is much better to have the populous trade it's Liberty freely for the illusion of security. Rinse, wash, and repeat for a few generations and the ONLY way to untangle the mess is a revolution. Thomas Jefferson believed that time frame to be 20 years ..... we are a bit over due.

OK - dictatorial coup was the wording I used because I simply could not (or cannot) envision possible grounds for a populist uprising without repression of the people and the denial of political will by the withdrawl of ballot box priveleges. Despite all the talk about small forces holding large forces at bay,do you believe that the arming of the populace is what is going to make the difference. In the event that the government has the support of the army and doesn't care about world opinion of brutal repression then the arming of the populace will have very little relevence. If there is no backing of the army, or the regime can be hurt by world opinion then peaceful populist protest a la Romania will be easily as successful

Since neither tactics nor strategy seem to be your forte, a discusion of military theory won't do much (this is not an insult mind you ). Suffice it to say that history is littered with occurances of technologically and numerically inferior forces defeating much more powerful foes. The Greeks were inferior to the Persians. A teenager by the name of Alexander was initially inferior to Sparta and Athens. The Goths and Huns were inferior to Rome's Legions. The British were inferior to Spain's Armada. We Americans were inferior to the Brits. The Russians were inferior to Napolean. Cromwell and the People were inferior to the King. Sheer numbers brought down the French Monarchy. Heck, technologically, we Americans were inferior to the Germans. The Vietnamese were inferior to us. Need I go on?

You also fail to recognise that a People's Revolution is just that, by the People. The System cannot possibly hope to retain 100% loyalty or control. Gen Robert E Lee, Gen "Stonewall" Jackson, and Gen Longstreet were the Union's finest generals prior to the South ceding from the North. They defected.

I am not saying that peaceful revolution is not possible or preferable. I am saying that an armed and well trained population is the last provision to keep gubmint honest and revoke consent to be governed should all other methods fail.

I think that you can see that from what I have put forward in the first 2 cases I believe that the 2nd amendment provisions have outgrown their true usefulness in todays society. The NRA clearly enjoy hiding behind the 2nd amendment justification, and my view is that it is time that facade was exposed and removed. I will save answering part 4 for another time. Cheers NS [img]smile.gif[/img]

You may believe you have debunked the need for the 2nd but really you have not. All of your examples naively rely on the beneficence of government. And they all fail when your ideal governments turn away from the People. A study of the Amercian Federal gubmint and it's expansion of powers would reveal that this is all to easy a temptation. How many affronts to Liberty can be found in American history? Way to many, and we were a nation founded on Liberty! Slavery, Manafest Destiny, Japanese Concentration Camps, The Tuskeegee Syphillis Experiment, McCarthyism, reactionary elements of the Civil Rights Movement, possibly the Kennedy Assassination (and Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King Jr, and Malcolm X - entertaining conspiracy theories only to expound upon a point), PATRIOT ACT. How many examples do you need showing gubmint acting less than benevolently? America is not the only "modern democracy" doing such actions either, only I am more familiar with my own back yard. You would probalby be supprised by the darker secrets of your own gubmint (I hope you are not naive enough to believe that you don't have at least one skeleton hiding in a closet).

The cold hard fact is that you cannot 100% trust Liberty or Securtiy that is provided by someone else; that you don't defend for yourself. For eventually the time will come when their intrests are at the expense of yours.

If you really want to expose facades, take a look at the practices of gubmint. It doesn't even have to be the national level either. Gubmint maintains it's control in today's "modern democracies" by labeling the small voices as "consiracy theorists", "bad people", "crazy cultists", "law breakers" and as long as the general population is not affected by laws that target "those people" everyone is happy. But when laws start biting Joe Citizen in the course of his normal everyday life, that is when apathy will convert to anger.

[ 03-23-2004, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Davros]

Sorry dude - I had forgotten all about this lil gem of a thread [img]smile.gif[/img] .

In part one you argued that tyranny doesn't need to be blatant to generate a populist uprising - but your very words depict that it must needs be tyranny. That means that to some demonstrable degree it is required that there be supression of the people. For that supression to be ongoing it requires electoral supression or mass manipulation - so my point remains that that sort of usurption of power is not possible under your fixed term democratic two party system.

You argue that usurption could be envisioned to be possible. Well of course almost anything is possible, but my argument is that it isn't feasible or relevant in todays developed society (and I confine that specific to the US because I am disputing US law). Nothing you have presented has disputed my contention that the probability of such an event is exceedingly small. To use that minute probability as a means of promulgating gun ownership raises to a near certainty the prbability that someone will die needlessly from the abuse and misuse of a weapon that was "on hand". Note that I contine to restrict our debate to the effect of the 2nd amendment on gun availability without taking things to the next level of what is good or bad about gun control.

20 years huh - Thomas Jefferson sounds an impatient type - makes you wonder if he would suffer from road rage if he got stuck in modern day freeway crawl .

You presented lots of examples of poor and greedy government, and looking through you would see almost equal numbers of poor administrations being voted the hell outta there as a result. If you ask me, the piece of legislation that needs fighting to be maintained is not the 2nd Amendment - it is the 2 terms only bit - that is why TJ hasn't had his 20 year revolution cycle - that is why populist uprising is reduced to a historical footnate in the US.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, in theory, the democratic process is a form of organized revolution. Also, I think TJ may have been deep into his cups or visiting Washington's "special crop" field when he made the 20yr. comment. Open revolution -- armed or otherwise -- every 20 years, pfffft who has the time or the effort. Looking back over the last 20 years, what are we revolting against? Al Gore's invention the internet? Crockett and Tubbs fashion faux pas? Voodo economics? DNA testing and oval orifices? I've used the quote myself, of course, and I like it -- but sheeesh, TJ only had 1 revolution during his life, and look what work that was!

On the other hand, taking Davros argument to the end, we are left with no rights other than electing our government. I think that if that's all our system was designed to provide, the Constitution would be a lot shorter. I remember that at least 10 rights were so important the drafters of the Constitution immediately amended the document to include those rights. These rights were also so important that all states ratified this immediate amendment to the Constitution. All of those rights have a purpose, and I hate to see them eroded. The 8th amendment, for instance, has been neutered by the SCOTUS. I'd prefer to hang onto the other 9 amendments found in the Bill of RIghts as long as I can, thank you. I may not be able to single-handedly take on my government in a game of thermo-nuclear warfare, but I still agree with the founding fathers that a man has a right to carry his basic weapons in his struggle against the world.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: a man has a right to carry his basic weapons in his struggle against the world.

Basic weapons as in clubs, sticks, rocks, knives.

Nothing basic about a firearm.

[ 03-24-2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]