CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Criminals yes, as for government hell no, not unless we have the technology the government has, your average gun nut or grass roots militia is nothing more the a laughing stock in the face of today's military weapons, this might of held some ground 100 years ago when things where a bit even in terms of weaponry but not today.
You forget that in a rebellion the fight would be in the homeland. Parts of the military might mutiny, the government would be reluctant to bomb their own cities and kill their own people. You seem to think that our entire army is just on stand by, but in reality, most of our military is just a bunch of weekend soldiers who have never seen combat.
That is very true, but you also forget that the American government does not fight fair, they can and will use nothing but drones while they sit safely in there underground bunkers, 1 man to wipe out a whole resistance movement using a single drone, also bio weapons, viruses ect. If it where man for man, we the people would win but that isn't that case anymore. the peoples ability to fight our government through warfare is no longer a reality due to the nature of the way America fights it's wars in the 21 century.
America's government can lose 99% of it's military personal and still win with NATO alone, numbers mean nothing vs a war with America, it's technology, so unless we have nukes, bio weapons, stealth fights, drones, EMP weapons and access to space and space satellites we are sitting ducks.
That is very true, but you also forget that the American government does not fight fair, they can and will use nothing but drones while they sit safely in there underground bunkers, 1 man to wipe out a whole resistance movement using a single drone, also bio weapons, viruses ect.
Again, you are fighting in the homeland, every building, factory, power plant, anything the government destroys is a loss to them. If they were to use a bio weapon on their own country that would be devastating to both sides. Also, during revolutions, if a government isn't "fighting fair" they have to worry about foreign opinion and intervention. Every time a drone kills a rebel, or someone who gets caught in the crossfire, more people will take up arms against the government.
America's government can lose 99% of it's military personal and still win with NATO alone, numbers mean nothing vs a war with America, it's technology, so unless we have nukes, bio weapons, stealth fights, drones, EMP weapons and access to space and space satellites we are sitting ducks.
NATO would likely not support America when it is using drones on its own people. Again with bio weapons and nukes, that would be like shooting yourself in the stomach to get rid of stomach virus, it is extremely self destructive. Also America has an army size of roughly 2 million, you have to take into account that most military members no not actually fight, they are just mechanics, cooks, nurses, doctors, band members, ect. The united states population is roughly around 300,000,000. Lets say 5% of the population took up arms against the government 15,000,000 people, they would be overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
These countries have their issues. I remember a couple of gassing events in Japan. There has been killing going between the countries of the UK for thousands of years. There are several different terrorist types groups in the UK that have killed lots of people over the years. They are still trying to sort all of that stuff out.
In Japan, the preferred method of killing is sword, knife, throwing star, poison blow-fish, poison, blow dart, and various other ninja weapons.
In England, they use much more sophisticated methods like the Candlestick, lead pipe, fire poker, poison, dueling pistons, or the pipe wrench.
I haven't actually researched the stats between countries, but violence death is more closely tied to levels of poverty then gun restrictions.
Ah, the poster whom's argument is based on finding fault with my typing. I meant pistols, but you knew that.
Finding fault with my typing is not hard. I cringe everything I read it the next day. I have major dyslexia where I often twist up the meaning of my words in to almost unreadable phrases. Even though it makes sense when I right it, and even when I proof read, the next day I am merely grateful that people try understand.
However, even so, picking on someone point of view because of spelling is just the Internet version of picking on the nerds.
I dont think i've ever corrected you before because I very rarely correct people on here because a lot of my posts are done from my phone when i'm on the bus and I dont always proof read them.
If I caused offence I apologise, I was joking and I thought you'd understand that because I thought your post was a joke based on Agatha Christie, Sherlock Holmes and Cluedo, please let me know if it was a joke or not and if it wasn't I will then dispute it properly, seriously and based on facts
If I caused offence I apologise, I was joking and I thought you'd understand that because I thought your post was a joke based on Agatha Christie, Sherlock Holmes and Cluedo, please let me know if it was a joke or not and if it wasn't I will then dispute it properly, seriously and based on facts
I am torn. I knew it was a joke, to some extent, though I do run into the Grammar Nazi that think your argument is invalidated by improper writing.
But I even though I wasn't really taking it seriously and was just looking for the easy slam, I'm very open to you debating "seriously." Of course, do not bother with facts, they don't mean much to me anyway. I deal more with high level inspiration which doesn't really rely much on facts.
For example: The Team Spirit, though a fairly easily defined and well recognized spirit, what it actually manifests is widely varied. The same with the Spirit of Music. The Spirit of Music can come upon a person, but what it manifests depends largely on the person.
I am with the fictional madman Don Quixote, "facts are the enemy of truth."
All I would have pointed out is that throwing stars have never been used to kill they were always used to distract your enemy. I have not heard of anyone being killed with a Candlestick although I do not discount the possibility much the same with the wrench, also duelling has been illegal in the UK for at least 100 years and the majority of dueling pistols are in museums. There may be some in private collections but it is unlikely they are operational. If someone's going to get murdered it's most likely to be by knife or fist, although we do have the occasional shooting they are few and far between.
Grammar Nazi's are a pain in the arose, sometimes people are well meaning but I think a lot of them are trying too hard to be clever I wouldn't let it bother you. If I comment on the way someone has written something it is usually because they have jumped on me for something similar or if I honestly cannot figure out what they are saying.
Because the big bad government is 100% your enemy and you should be armed against them in case they come to get you.
Pft.
Where I come from, you'd be called a cop killer.
This isn't to say you are necessarily someone who would do such a thing, but this reply is meant to point out how stupid and irrelevant it is to point out that the government has weapons.
Really? R u srs? Gutrest dohg pls, y u do dis?
The armed government - the police, the military, the national guard, etc - is run by civilians. In fact, the entire frickin government is run by civilians... but whatever. I can see you didn't even properly dispute the first person to reply to you, so I don't expect different treatment.
All governments are run by civilians, what is the point in that comment? There are no robots, all government employees either US or Iranian have good intentions, but crave power.
As for who runs the government, 99% of all government employees are unelected officials where probably most of all government regulation is passed by agencies, just in 2011, federal agencies passed some 80,000 pages worth of regulations, this doesn't include state and local agencies.
The point is that civilians are not helpless against the government, because the government is them.
Creating a dichotomy between 'government' and 'criminals' is totally arbitrary, because an individual in the government with a gun who kills a civilian is literally a civilian criminal him or herself.
The separation of terms implies an opinion in whence you think the entire government is out to get you, and you need to defend yourself against them... which is, as I said in my previous comment, completely stupid. The government is us. Being afraid of the government isn't any different from being afraid of your neighbor.
And unless you know them personally, directly or indirectly, you have no reason to be scared or mistrustful of either your neighbor or a government employee/official.
On a side note, since the government is made of civilians and are essentially no different then you or I, then why advocate having the freedom to have a firearm? I mean, if you distrust the government, the only way to not be completely stupid in also believing in unregulated firearm usage would be to also distrust the idea of your neighbor having a firearm. So, then, wait... if you aren't totally stupid, and distrust both your neighbor and the government, then doesn't that mean you only believe in freedom of firearms for yourself?
So then if you're not stupid, you're selfish and paranoid? Hm... I could be mistaken, but it makes plenty of sense for a lot of folk I meet who believe in gun freedom.
As for who runs the government, 99% of all government employees are unelected officials where probably most of all government regulation is passed by agencies, just in 2011, federal agencies passed some 80,000 pages worth of regulations, this doesn't include state and local agencies.
So what? Whether you were elected or hired, our government is designed with a system of checks and balances to make sure nothing gets out of hand, which it hasn't yet. Bad things the government does directly correlate with basic human flaw, or, directly correlate with bribery - or, sorry, 'persuasion' - by wealthy citizens, monetarily or otherwise.
Point being, whether you are elected or hired, there is something else in tow in the system that keeps you in line, whether it be the threat of public hatred, the dethronement of your elected or hired office, or even the simple idea of being caught doing wrong... you have huge incentive to not do horrible things or make mistakes. About as much incentive as anyone else in your class bracket has, government worker or not.
Being afraid of the government isn't any different from being afraid of your neighbor.
Actually, it is different, government is some 10 million employees whereas my neighbors encompass no more than 10 people. No comparison at all.
I would trust my neighbor before the government because my neighbor isn't trying to take my guns away, this is the mutual contract between neighbors, if you respect him and his property, respect will be reciprocal. Government is the opposite, government is constantly finding ways to rob me of my property through some socialist justification robbery and tell me what I can and can't do to my own property. Government will do anything to destroy freedom, and it gain power.
Point being, whether you are elected or hired
True, but that wasn't the point in my previous argument, obviously, they are subjected to law just as anyone else, but the one key difference is they have the power to change the law at their discretion, and they have been doing it for years and years for their advantage such as ignoring the fact the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional.
Actually, it is different, government is some 10 million employees whereas my neighbors encompass no more than 10 people. No comparison at all.
Because government employees are so different from employees of anywhere else?
The way you word this statement suggests yet again that the government in this country is somehow separate from the civilian population, when it isn't.
Your next paragraph doesn't even warrant a largely individual disputation now that I've reiterated this. The government doesn't truly rob you unless they take away something from you that destroys your livelihood, and even then, it's not unjustified if they did such a thing at behest of you doing something immoral (I'd say illegal, but many illegal things are very unnecessarily illegal, such as certain recreational substances).
If you think taxes are robbery, think again. Taxes are rent for living here. Except, unlike many landlords, the government takes your money and tries to improve the general quality of your life, by building roads and other infrastructures, and funding forces that protect your life from other people, like the police and military. (Not to say you were necessarily thinking of taxes in the context of your statement, but very often when I see an argument like what you made about being 'robbed', it leads into an opinion about taxes being unjust. So, my apologies if the proactive assumption was incorrectly applied here)
Government will do anything to destroy freedom, and it gain power.
Ours is about just as likely to behave such a way as your neighbor is.
What I probably haven't done is really state why this is.
To be very simple, they have the same incentive as normal civilians, it's just on a higher scale, and thus the responsibility and incentive to be responsible are both monumentally greater then when you or I simply make decisions about our families, or whatever.
True, but that wasn't the point in my previous argument, obviously, they are subjected to law just as anyone else, but the one key difference is they have the power to change the law at their discretion...
Um... no they don't. They change it at the discretion of everyone, not just them. If they did things based upon only what they wanted, they will, at the very least, be voted out of office and scorned by their peers. At worst, if they all tried to band together to take away freedoms, then they would simply be subjected to chaotic uprisings and resistances, and all of their power would then mean nothing. Their power has value dependent only upon our happiness and living conditions.
As in, they have incentive, vast incentive, to not be tempted into doing evil. In fact, probably more then you or I have incentive to not do evil.
If they didn't have such incentive, then that would imply we are as about free in this country as people are in Egypt, meaning that by now, our country would have already collapsed and reformed far more times then simply once in the late 19th century.
I suppose one could retort that we are no more free then the people of Egypt, and simply believe that we are the freest nation in the world, but that would be delving into some bizarre conspiracy theory that doesn't really have a place here.
The way you word this statement suggests yet again that the government in this country is somehow separate from the civilian population, when it isn't.
Every country the government plays by a different set of rules, in the United States, they have stomped on the Constitution for century. Government officials always favors its friends.
Except, unlike many landlords, the government takes your money and tries to improve the general quality of your life, by building roads and other infrastructures, and funding forces that protect your life from other people, like the police and military.
If taxation isn't robbery and perceived as rent, then this would mean that government actually owns everyone and everything in labor, property and capital since dictionary.com defines rent is to obtain occupancy or use of (another's property) in return for regular payments. That statement is truly absurd.
Also, if government is improving the general quality of life, by building roads, infrastructure and security, why does it need the use of force, all private companies improve the quality of life through many more examples than government, and they do it completely on a voluntary basis, plus those government services could easily be done by the market.
They change it at the discretion of everyone, not just them.
Explosive growth in regulations has fueled criticism that the rulemaking process reduces the transparency and accountability of democratic government. Rulemaking was an delegation from legislative to executive.
Every country the government plays by a different set of rules, in the United States, they have stomped on the Constitution for century.
This opinion is relative. The only opinion relevant towards what stomps on the Constitution or not is the Supreme Courts usage of judicial review. This is how it's always been. If you want to say such a thing is tyrannical, then our government has always been tyrannical, according to your view.
Also, when you say 'for century' do you mean 'for a century' or 'for centuries'? Because I can't tell. ಠ_ಠ
Government officials always favors its friends.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm okay with the double standard listed in this article. Oil companies dominate and have an oligarchical monopoly surrounding the energy business. As much as I care about the environment, I'm not really concerned with preventing animal deaths unless a species is about to go extinct. So, I'm okay with oil companies being bullied, provided them being bullied results in the higher-ups being punished and not just their laborers being punished (as much as I would prefer it just being the higher-ups being punished and not the laborers, it would require a ground-up rework of 'free enterprise' to prevent CEO's from making their laborers suffer before they let their personal profits get damaged)
So, wind power companies getting special treatment is fine by me.
In fact, saying the government 'favors it's friends' in this context is actually a bit incorrect. A friend in the context you use would more closely be an oil company lobbyist that bribes government officials. I highly doubt wind power companies are anywhere near the amount of power required to do a massive amount of bribing, thus I can only assume in this case, the government is actually turning it's back to it's lobbyist friends so that alternative power can get headway in the energy business that rivals, or perhaps overturns, oil.
That statement is truly absurd.
The government owns the land. To gain citizenry is to be allowed to legally live on this land. When you become a citizen, you get taxed, but can live here and do lots of things without being arrested.
A landlord owns property. To become a tenant is to be allowed to legally live on that property. When you become a tenant, you have to pay rent, but can now live on that property and can even personalize your living space somewhat without violating your contract with the landlord.
So no, the statement that taxes are like rent is not absurd. The government doesn't own everything we own and do for the same reason a landlord doesn't own your furniture when you move in.
Also, if government is improving the general quality of life, by building roads, infrastructure and security, why does it need the use of force
Because people should be forced to behave morally. What kind of question is this? That's the point of laws; to give people incentive to not murder and pillage and damage other people for no justification. If you break the law, you pay a price. This isn't to say that all laws are sensible towards how morality works, but generally in the Western world, laws are created on basis of what is considered right and wrong in an area. So even if a few laws relating to the public are morally ambiguous, most are not (as in, laws relating to harming other human beings).
all private companies improve the quality of life through many more examples than government, and they do it completely on a voluntary basis, plus those government services could easily be done by the market.
Again with this naivety. ಠ_ಠ
The government regulates corporatism to prevent greed from harming people. This is the entire reason for government regulation of corporatism. Even if a regulation is stupid, it's generally an attempt to prevent people from being abused by corporations, whether they are workers or consumers.
Sure, business improves the quality of life as a general rule, but the idea behind business is to serve the self by serving others. The intention is ultimately selfish, which at base, isn't necessarily evil. But caring more about the self can lead to a disregard for other people. Therefore, the unregulated ability of a selfish individual to gain limitless power through money will allow a larger business to get away with larger misdeeds.
So, big business is always a bad thing. Monopolies are bad. Oligarchical monopolies are bad. Unless the individual is the reincarnation of Buddha or Jesus Christ or some such nonsense, it is nigh impossible for a corporate tycoon to have gotten where he or she gets because they care about other people. And don't even mention voluntary philanthropy. Philanthropists either don't work for their money and therefore don't understand the kind of suffering they may be causing, or, they understand exactly the kind of suffering they are causing and are just trying to make amends.
With that said, leaving everything to 'free enterprise' is about as good idea as leaving everything to the government. Business is great as long as it's not harming other people, which is why government should regulate business where it harms people just like government regulates non-business civilian practices that could harm people.
This 'all-or-nothing' crap is starting to tire me. ~_~
Explosive growth in regulations has fueled criticism that the rulemaking process reduces the transparency and accountability of democratic government. Rulemaking was an delegation from legislative to executive.
The only true criticism there is about regulation is the possibility of them being inefficient and improperly written. If they do more harm then help, then of course they're a bad thing. But is this to say regulation should be done away with utterly and just let corporate greed permeate society and destroy people's livelihoods? Of course fucking not. The regulations should just be not made badly, obviously.
The only opinion relevant towards what stomps on the Constitution or not is the Supreme Courts usage of judicial review.
Actually, nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review; therefore,
the Judicial Branch has always been an accomplice in backing of the Executive Branch in excessive power.
"One of the most insightful of the Antifederalists was Robert Yates, a New York judge who, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, withdrew because the convention was exceeding its instructions. Yates wrote as Brutus in the debates over the Constitution. Given his experience as a judge, his claim that the Supreme Court would become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching was particularly insightful.
Brutus asserted that the Supreme Court envisioned under the Constitution would become a source of massive abuse because they were beyond the control "both of the people and the legislature," and not subject to being "corrected by any power above them." As a result, he objected to the fact that its provisions justifying the removal of judges didn't include making rulings that went beyond their constitutional authority, which would lead to judicial tyranny." Mises
The government owns the land.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm okay with the double standard listed in this article.
That is unfortunate.
Are you suggesting that government owns every square inch of land in the United States and we only use it for rent and pay in taxes? Again, this is absurd.
Government doesn't own land, and any land that it does own, it is expropriated through the means of taxation. Therefore, taxes is not like rent. It is theft through the act of coercion.
That's the point of laws; to give people incentive to not murder and pillage and damage other people for no justification.
Ok, I can see your justification of force for security though still don't agree, this could still be provided by the market with more emphasis on common law rather than statutory law, but why does the government need the use of force to build road, infrastructure where these could be provided by the market.
The government regulates corporatism to prevent greed from harming people.
Wrong, government triangular intervention in regulations is the reason for the creation of corporatism.
Because the big bad government is 100% your enemy and you should be armed against them in case they come to get you.
Pft.
Where I come from, you'd be called a cop killer.
Yes, I am obviously a cop killer because I acknowledge that government can be oppressive and that just because we live in the "civilized world" it doesn't mean it can't happen.
This isn't to say you are necessarily someone who would do such a thing, but this reply is meant to point out how stupid and irrelevant it is to point out that the government has weapons.
If the government has powerful weapons, we should at least be allowed to have a firearm other than a pistol.
The armed government - the police, the military, the national guard, etc - is run by civilians. In fact, the entire frickin government is run by civilians... but whatever. I can see you didn't even properly dispute the first person to reply to you, so I don't expect different treatment.
That is an irrelevant point that they are all civilians, FDR was a civilian but he that didn't stop his American Resistance Movement. Woodrow Wilson was a citizen, that didn't stop him from arresting suffragist, anti-war and anti-Wilson protesters. Just because everyone in society is given the same title doesn't assure safety.
Yes, I am obviously a cop killer because I acknowledge that government can be oppressive and that just because we live in the "civilized world" it doesn't mean it can't happen.
To acknowledge a government of our type could be oppressive is to acknowledge that your neighbor could be a sycophantic rapist.
Wanting to arm yourself against our government is no different from arming yourself against another civilian, so why differentiate the two?
The problem I have with this stance is that you assume the government is different from you or I. Not only is that asinine, but that is paranoid. That is not a way to live; both going to sleep and waking up thinking that a civilian in an office is somehow automatically more your enemy then your neighbor. It doesn't make any sense. Their incentive to do evil is no different from yours, so why trust them any less then you trust any other person you know?
If the government has powerful weapons, we should at least be allowed to have a firearm other than a pistol.
I don't see why not, but you should have to go through at least some loops and licenses so the public, whether government or civilian, can trust you with a powerful weapon.
If you're not willing to go through that, then you don't deserve to have a powerful weapon. You want to talk about this on a basis of trust? Well then certainly you can sympathize with county, state, and federal government officials also wanting to deal with this on a basis of trust. And a documented license allows them to trust you.
Just because everyone in society is given the same title doesn't assure safety.
That's the entire point of my disputation towards you. You held 'government' and 'criminals' in two separate categories. If someone from the government does something illegal, they aren't suddenly different from a normal criminal. They are just like any other criminal (except, perhaps, they have the unregulated wealth of the Upper Class to back them up).
So, this natural differentiation you make between government (which is a group of people) and a criminal (which is person), is totally moot, and implies an idea that the government is somehow different from us. That somehow, it's us against them, or them against us, etc.
No. We and the government are the same damn thing. If we fall into disarray, they fall into disarray. If they fall into disarray, we fall into disarray. That's now it works in the United States of America.
Wanting to defend yourself against the government is like wanting to defend yourself against your neighbor. Both are about as likely to do unjust upon you, which is approximately... never. Unless, of course, you consider petty things to be unjust, but I don't know you, so I can only make a generic assumption.
So I suppose then the question is, are you so paranoid as to want to carry a firearm because you trust nobody? Or, are you foolish and trust the government less then any random stranger you happen upon? If you are some combination of both questions, then why do you wish for everyone to have gun rights? I mean, if you trust nobody, and everyone has a gun just like you, then it doesn't change how safe you feel, does it?
The problem I have with this stance is that you assume the government is different from you or I. Not only is that asinine, but that is paranoid. That is not a way to live; both going to sleep and waking up thinking that a civilian in an office is somehow automatically more your enemy then your neighbor.
I don't assume, I just acknowledge that it is possible for another civilian who is holding an office of power to be oppressive.
heir incentive to do evil is no different from yours, so why trust them any less then you trust any other person you know?
Actually, its not. My incentive is to just do well and enjoy life. There are a small handful of politicians who are here to serve their country, most are just here to fill their pockets. Democracy is the best form of government we have found so far, however, it is not without its flaws. A system where fools can vote and candidates are able lie is a natural breeding ground for corruption. The right to vote does not ensure liberty and freedom.
I don't see why not, but you should have to go through at least some loops and licenses so the public, whether government or civilian, can trust you with a powerful weapon
I do believe there should be some requirements, such as the 10 day waiting period and you would have to pass some sort of test to own an assault weapon.
Well then certainly you can sympathize with county, state, and federal government officials also wanting to deal with this on a basis of trust. And a documented license allows them to trust you.
That's the entire point of my disputation towards you. You held 'government' and 'criminals' in two separate categories. If someone from the government does something illegal, they aren't suddenly different from a normal criminal. They are just like any other criminal (except, perhaps, they have the unregulated wealth of the Upper Class to back them up).
The government can change the laws, for example, if the federal government passed a bill that gave the government the right to execute anyone, they technically wouldn't be criminals, they would just be evil people. A criminal is someone who breaks a law, an oppressive government is one that haws laws that allow for it to commit atrocities. If a government official breaks a law, then yes, they are a criminal.
Wanting to defend yourself against the government is like wanting to defend yourself against your neighbor. Both are about as likely to do unjust upon you, which is approximately... never. Unless, of course, you consider petty things to be unjust, but I don't know you, so I can only make a generic assumption.
We The People are not the government, we just decided who gets to be elected into it. You seem not to see the difference between a man in Alaska minding his own business and a bureaucrat in Washington D.C. A nation where everyone believes they are the government is a granfalloon.
There is a difference between the voting body and the elected.
So I suppose then the question is, are you so paranoid as to want to carry a firearm because you trust nobody? Or, are you foolish and trust the government less then any random stranger you happen upon?
Some random stranger can't force me to give him/her 20% of my earnings, monitor my phone and Internet, tell me what substance I can put in my body, draft me or send me off to war. An elected official can.
There is a difference between a voter and a politician in a far distant capital.
I don't assume, I just acknowledge that it is possible for another civilian who is holding an office of power to be oppressive.
He was put in office because of us, and he can be just as easily removed because of us. This leads me to get the impression you want to be able to use an assault rifle against anyone, not just the government.
But if that's the case, why wish for everyone to own one? If you wish for everyone to be able to own one, then surely that's not going to make you feel safer. Unless you trust your neighbor more then you trust the government, which is again, silly, because the government isn't any different from us.
Waaaagh, my vegetable brain is sending me in loops.
Actually, its not... (con't)
No, it's exactly the same. Your goal is to do well and enjoy life as well. The same is true for politicians. Sometimes, they may think doing evil furthers that goal, and will attempt to do said evil. But, just as you are intelligent enough to realize that doing evil will have it's ramifications for you if you are caught, so do politicians have the capacity to be intelligent enough to realize that doing evil will have it's ramifications upon them.
Democracy is not flawless, because human beings are not flawless. But assuming that democratic governmental incentive is different from democratic civilian incentive is asinine. This is because every aspect of our government trickles down to civilians, one way or another. Not only that, but our government conflicts within itself so that it doesn't get out of line.
The right to vote does not ensure liberty and freedom for a civilian population that is stupid, no. This is why our country is both a representative democracy and a corporate oligarchy. Because the smartest, cruelest people among us had the freedom to take advantage of free enterprise, thus resulting in them accumulating enough wealth to influence the public and the state into being and ignorant system they apathetically leech off of.
My underlying point is that the government is no more evil then any of us, if we're smart. It's up to us to not be told by others what is what and instead give ourselves empirical evidence over what we are doing. Which is why I have a problem differentiating government and the citizenry... because they aren't really the same. They are cyclical, at least in the United States. We have the freedom to control what the government does, so if they irresponsibly make us suffer, that's our fault.
Or the fault of the rich who influence everything from outside the whole thing, but I'm trying really hard not to make this about the wealthy.
I do believe there should be some requirements, such as the 10 day waiting period and you would have to pass some sort of test to own an assault weapon.
Then you don't exactly believe that gun restrictions leave people vulnerable and helpless, do you? Because what you speak of is indeed a restriction, and while you probably aren't thinking that the test would be bone-crushingly hard, it is still a restriction nonetheless... perhaps a restriction some people would not be willing to undergo.
The government can change the laws, for example, if the federal government passed a bill that gave the government the right to execute anyone, they technically wouldn't be criminals, they would just be evil people.
The only way this would realistically happen without the entire country falling to ruin would be if the wealthy poured every last ounce of their wealth into making sure that not a single civilian learned of the contents of the bill. And even then, it would be pretty fucking hard to prevent at least someone from finding out... unless of course, people start inexplicably being murdered before they can find out, or get other people to find out. But of that happened, then local police officers and detectives would have to be bribed as well... and when it comes down to it, such a large-scale act of evil becomes cartoonishly unrealistic.
And that's because everything counteracts everything in this country.
Even the rich can be overturned by a simple politician being moral and refusing a bribe, or a single higher-up in their corporation having a change of heart and revealing rancid details to the public to alleviate his conscious.
Which is why this paranoia of presuming the government will do something so ridiculous, is... well... ridiculous. I believe in being better safe then sorry, but I can't take it to such an extreme I think that everyday, average people are out to get me life, like, say... every single person hired by or appointed to the government, ever.
A criminal is someone who breaks a law, an oppressive government is one that haws laws that allow for it to commit atrocities.
Again, our government simply wouldn't do that. It's not designed to. If there was ever a point when we came close to this happening, it was thwarted by the simple logic that if they tried to be oppressive, they would be destroyed by our unified will.
... There is a difference between the voting body and the elected.
One is a person who has incentive to not do wrong, and another is a person who has more responsibility, but also has exponentially far more incentive to not do wrong.
If you can call that a difference, then sure, there is a difference. But ultimately, it is balanced the best it can be... well, except for free enterprise. That unbalances the cycle in favor of nobody except individual scumbags. But I think a voting body can overcome such a thing by being intelligent and having strength in numbers.
And the intelligence starts with realizing that we can't just sit back and believe that the government is something out to get us. If it's smart, the voting body has more control then the government every time it votes on anything.
The true problem comes from outside the whole government/civilian balance. But as I said, I'm trying desperately to not make this about the rich. ಠ_ಠ
Some random stranger...
1. False. They can mug you. Repeatedly.
2. False. We have the technology to do this.
3. False. Peer pressure.
4. Not exactly false, but a random stranger can get into a fight with you for your life, which is similar to being drafted into a war, except on a less grand, organized scale.
There is a difference between a voter and a politician in a far distant capital.
No, there isn't. If you or I fuck up when we do our job, we have to scurry to either hide our mistake, rectify it, or prepare ourselves to be punished. In the end, we will deal with our boss and possibly our families being distraught with us.
If a politician fucks up when they do their job, they have to scurry to either hide their mistake, rectify it, or prepare themselves to be punished. Except, in the end, they have to deal with everyone they've ever known and represented hating them. At least, hating them for a good portion of time. And even if they live to see a day they aren't hated, they will be recorded in the history books as being hated, and their mistakes, abominable.
So... you know, sure, there is a difference... but not the kind of difference you're thinking of. You speak as if they have no incentive to be moral and ethical, because why, greed? What do they have to gain? An upper-middle-class salary? A salary that might be an Upper Class salary?
Well, that would make sense and all, if it didn't mean that being caught would ruin their entire life. Do you think George W. Bush is able to walk into crowds of people nonchalantly in the middle of a K-Mart? Of course he isn't, at least not usually. He's too busy living at home on the countryside, with his family, away from other people. Because, without a doubt, he earned enough hatred from his mistakes in office that walking into a crowded building would likely end in violence, or sorrow. Something negative.
With great power comes great responsibility. Yes, I am a nerd. But what you fail to seemingly understand is that a person dependent upon other people for happiness (like Spiderman, or a politician) can't be intentionally irresponsible, or the consequences are great for both parties... or in the case of politicians, the consequences are most heavily felt in their direction... because what does a suffering population have to loose other then their lives when resisting tyranny? They're already suffering.
It's like near the end of the Avengers movie. Do you really think oppression will result in the oppressor coming out on top? In a case of when the oppression is violently enforced and violently repelled? Of course not. History shows us this!
And the people who haven't figured this out by now are not the majority of people that work in, for, or with the government.
He was put in office because of us, and he can be just as easily removed because of us. This leads me to get the impression you want to be able to use an assault rifle against anyone, not just the government.
This leads me to believe that you think that since we live in a Republic/Democracy that it will always be that way, the average voter is informed of what goes on and that'll of us saying "leave office" when a government has become oppressive will work.
But if that's the case, why wish for everyone to own one? If you wish for everyone to be able to own one, then surely that's not going to make you feel safer. Unless you trust your neighbor more then you trust the government, which is again, silly, because the government isn't any different from us.
Government is different from us. Just because you give everyone the title of citizen does not mean that we are all in charge. There is a large difference between the voter and the government, also, not all democracy is direct.
No, it's exactly the same. Your goal is to do well and enjoy life as well. The same is true for politicians. Sometimes, they may think doing evil furthers that goal, and will attempt to do said evil. But, just as you are intelligent enough to realize that doing evil will have it's ramifications for you if you are caught, so do politicians have the capacity to be intelligent enough to realize that doing evil will have it's ramifications upon them.
Same is not true for politicians. Most politicians are not sloppy when it comes to corruption. You have to remember, this is a democracy where most of the voters have no idea what is going on, the name of the game is deceit.
Democracy is not flawless, because human beings are not flawless. But assuming that democratic governmental incentive is different from democratic civilian incentive is asinine. This is because every aspect of our government trickles down to civilians, one way or another. Not only that, but our government conflicts within itself so that it doesn't get out of line.
No it, the incentive is very different. Take for instance the Patriot Act and NDAA, most people who know about these things oppose them, but you voted the politicians who passed them back in. You have to remember, most voters have almost no political view, they just watch the news on TV and then like some candidates face book page during a major state or national election.
The only way you could make it seem that all power trickles down to civilians is with that naive 2nd grader argument of, "but we can vote"
The right to vote does not ensure liberty and freedom for a civilian population that is stupid, no. This is why our country is both a representative democracy and a corporate oligarchy. Because the smartest, cruelest people among us had the freedom to take advantage of free enterprise, thus resulting in them accumulating enough wealth to influence the public and the state into being and ignorant system they apathetically leech off of.
Smartest? Maybe. Cruelest? No. You see, when a business makes a ton of money, it didn't go around mugging people, people willing bought their goods. As for "free-enterprise" you understand that no corporation wants a Free Enterprise, right? Corporations constantly lobby for and and promote higher minimum wage and more workers benefits. Why would they do this? Because it kills competition, the biggest threat to any corporation or big business is competition and a Free Enterprise system is full of competition, it drives quality up and costs down. Powerful corporations do not want a free market.
Oh, and as for them leeching off of the system, let me remind you, starting a business and getting rich is not leeching, its called success.
Or the fault of the rich who influence everything from outside the whole thing, but I'm trying really hard not to make this about the wealthy.
Exactly, however, the problem with your logic that you think that these evil corporations (who provide goods, services and jobs through voluntary deals) influence everything and they are pushing for a free enterprise system. If they were, they wouldn't be backing up the politicians moving towards a European system government.
Then you don't exactly believe that gun restrictions leave people vulnerable and helpless, do you? Because what you speak of is indeed a restriction, and while you probably aren't thinking that the test would be bone-crushingly hard, it is still a restriction nonetheless... perhaps a restriction some people would not be willing to undergo.
Actually I do. However, I think that if you are going to buy an assault rifle there should be a 10 day waiting period.
The only way this would realistically happen without the entire country falling to ruin would be if the wealthy poured every last ounce of their wealth into making sure that not a single civilian learned of the contents of the bill. And even then, it would be pretty fucking hard to prevent at least someone from finding out... unless of course, people start inexplicably being murdered before they can find out, or get other people to find out. But of that happened, then local police officers and detectives would have to be bribed as well... and when it comes down to it, such a large-scale act of evil becomes cartoonishly unrealistic.
Actually, for the sake of argument, it would be very easy to do. Call the vote on the bill when only a few officials are there. Bribe all of them.
Which is why this paranoia of presuming the government will do something so ridiculous, is... well... ridiculous. I believe in being better safe then sorry, but I can't take it to such an extreme I think that everyday, average people are out to get me life, like, say... every single person hired by or appointed to the government, ever.
Your idea that me wanting an assault rifle to defend myself from an oppressive government means that I want to kill all voters and government officials is.. well, ridiculous.
Again, our government simply wouldn't do that. It's not designed to. If there was ever a point when we came close to this happening, it was thwarted by the simple logic that if they tried to be oppressive, they would be destroyed by our unified will.
Since 2000 we have invaded Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan (some of the fighting spilled over into Pakistan), started a proxy war with Syria, passed the Patriot Act and NDAA. Please tell me more about how when the government does bad things that they are destroyed.
And the intelligence starts with realizing that we can't just sit back and believe that the government is something out to get us. If it's smart, the voting body has more control then the government every time it votes on anything.
No one just "sits back" when government starts invading our privacy and sending our troops into wars they were never supposed to fight. We try to spread the word, however, anytime you take a political stance besides "legalize weed" or "legalize gay marriage" everyone puts their hands over their ears.
The voting body would have control, if most of the voting body wasn't politically retarded. Again, many of them just watch TV around an election time, don't really know to much about the candidates. I wish the voting body was smart, but lets face it, if Bush and Obama got two terms, most voters are obviously not to informed.
1. False. They can mug you. Repeatedly.
2. False. We have the technology to do this.
3. False. Peer pressure.
4. Not exactly false, but a random stranger can get into a fight with you for your life, which is similar to being drafted into a war, except on a less grand, organized scale.
I see your point, however:
1. Arm yourself, so if you get mugged, if you get the chance, you can shoot that criminal.
2. Get good computer security/
3. I can't remember what the third one was and don't feel like going back.
4. There is a difference between getting in a bar fight with some drunkard and politicians ordering young men to unwilling leave their homes and go fight a war.
If a politician fucks up when they do their job, they have to scurry to either hide their mistake, rectify it, or prepare themselves to be punished. Except, in the end, they have to deal with everyone they've ever known and represented hating them. At least, hating them for a good portion of time. And even if they live to see a day they aren't hated, they will be recorded in the history books as being hated, and their mistakes, abominable.
You assume that these "fuck ups" all eventually come to public knowledge and that they come very quickly. Thats just outright false.
Take for instance the Lusitania, the knowledge that the ship was loaded with explosives, the ship was in a war zone and the message the Germany Embassy sent out begging people not to board it because it was very dangerous. This was the basis for America entering World War I, this knowledge did not come out until after World War II.
So... you know, sure, there is a difference... but not the kind of difference you're thinking of. You speak as if they have no incentive to be moral and ethical, because why, greed? What do they have to gain? An upper-middle-class salary? A salary that might be an Upper Class salary?
Even if a politician wasn't corrupt, he/she could still make a good salary just sitting around doing nothing. If he/she wants to make an extra bit of money, a special interest group can give them some extra cash to vote a certain way.
Well, that would make sense and all, if it didn't mean that being caught would ruin their entire life. Do you think George W. Bush is able to walk into crowds of people nonchalantly in the middle of a K-Mart? Of course he isn't, at least not usually. He's too busy living at home on the countryside, with his family, away from other people. Because, without a doubt, he earned enough hatred from his mistakes in office that walking into a crowded building would likely end in violence, or sorrow. Something negative.
True, however, Bush was only hated for his wars, on thing you have to know about America politics is this: When the right goes to war, everyone is anger (rightfully so) when the left goes to war, some people are angered (even though it should be everyone)
With great power comes great responsibility. Yes, I am a nerd.
I got the spiderman reference.
But what you fail to seemingly understand is that a person dependent upon other people for happiness (like Spiderman, or a politician) can't be intentionally irresponsible, or the consequences are great for both parties... or in the case of politicians
They are not intentionally irresponsible, if you're going to be corrupt or do something bad you better work your ass off, or else you're getting screwed in the end.
This leads me to believe that you think that since we live in a Republic/Democracy that it will always be that way...
The only deterrent I can predict to our early resistance to tyranny would be corporate-funded government propaganda. Other then that, what would possibly not work? I know enough soldiers personally to know that even the rigorous brainwashing they go through isn't really enough for any of them to totally loose their individuality and come out the other end with no ability to think for themselves. So government tyranny would not be followed necessarily by severe martial law, considering, based upon what I know, the military would likely have too much internal conflict within itself to efficiently comply with tyrannical orders.
Furthermore, even if martial law did ensue, I will reiterate, what does that acquire for our politicians? If we don't give them power, they have none. The value based upon their power is dependent upon us. If they plunged the nation into chaos, they would just be men in sitting in fancy chairs with gunfire and riots happening right outside. Without consent to have power in the United States, the populace will destroy you.
It's not like we could become North Korea over night without a massive amount of chaos ensuing beforehand. And in the end, I don't think enough U.S. politicians will ever be greedy enough to come close to thinking that the risk of destroying the country is a good enough risk to take to gain them an ambiguous amount of undefined power.
There is a large difference between the voter and the government, also, not all democracy is direct.
There isn't much a difference between me and and a senator, other then the senator has a lot more responsibility and a lot more pressure on him. That is it. Maybe that's not how it is in other countries, but that's how it in the United States. Our government is not designed to be able to be turned into a monarchy over night.
Most politicians are not sloppy when it comes to corruption. You have to remember, this is a democracy where most of the voters have no idea what is going on, the name of the game is deceit.
It's easy to find out what's going on in politics if you pay attention. The voters don't really know these days because they are comfortable jumping on bandwagons. But that comfortability is a weapon by the populace which could be turned into an advantage against any whisper of oppression. The second someone can give factual, convincing evidence that something terrible is happening in the government, and they don't have their head up their asses and are lazy, then they could easily cause organized riots and protests and chaos.
Because as I said, evil in this country cannot be accomplished unless it is very subtle. And if it is very subtle, and doesn't hurt people hugely or obviously, then it's a non-issue in comparison to more obvious, massive evils. (Which isn't to say it's totally a non-issue, but it's child's play in comparison to resistance against big business, or dictatorial regimes in other countries)
The only way you could make it seem that all power trickles down to civilians is with that naive 2nd grader argument of, "but we can vote"
As I said above and will reiterate again, we are only uneducated because we are comfortable. We are comfortable because government does not commonly attempt to do things so horrible that they are obvious and will destroy our livelihoods.
We can whine and complain about our government all we want, but unless they are directly responsible for you being homeless, or for your family member suffering right now, then you don't really have anything to complain about in comparison to, say, a citizen of China.
This isn't to say we shouldn't always be trying to find ways to improve things, like ridding the government and free enterprise of greed, corruption, and evil. But antagonizing the entire system, which is so far the best system possible in the known world, is not what's going to give them incentive to not attempt to be evil.
Also, what did this paragraph have anything to do with your statement that their incentive is very different?
You see, when a business makes a ton of money, it didn't go around mugging people, people willing bought their goods.
When you monopolize a good, of course people 'willingly' buy them.
I laugh at this pathetic justification for robbery. 'Willing'? No. Nothing about corporatism in the United States has ever been willing. The only time there is willingness is when a town is dominated by a friendly community of small businesses, and such a town these days is harder to find then the Eastern North American Cougar.
As for "free-enterprise" you understand that no corporation wants a Free Enterprise, right?
'No' corporation?
Absolutist statements are idiotic. You should try avoiding them better.
Corporations constantly lobby for and and promote higher minimum wage and more workers benefits. Why would they do this? Because it kills competition, the biggest threat to any corporation or big business is competition and a Free Enterprise system is full of competition, it drives quality up and costs down.
As logical as this is, by no means do all, or even most, corporations do this.
They don't think in these terms. They only think of getting as much power as possible and crushing opponents. And rarely do they do it by making their workplaces more habitable and preferable to labor forces.
Indeed, they do it by reckless, morally ambiguous means. If they don't have to help people to kill competition, they usually won't, because giving has significantly higher profit margin risk then simply taking. If you give people things, but it wasn't enough for them to give back to you more then before, then you just lost out a huge amount.
Because of this, corporations, as demonstrated by the first corporations, the robber barons, are more likely to be morally ambiguous, subtle, and low risk then high-risk and moral. They will not treat their labor forces well if they can hold onto their laborers with force or necessity. They will not treat their labor forces well if loosing a few workers is a lesser loss of production then changing their work ethics.
And furthermore, even if they do lobby for higher minimum wages and laborer benefits, that doesn't mean it's to any ultimate benefit to the workers. I know this from personal experience growing up. My father was forced to work at a very specific factory because no other factory in our city had the same pay and benefits that could support our family in our situation. This is how it was for every other veteran worker in that factory. And because the people running the plant knew this, they had no issue with treating their labor force to physical and psychological abuse. Because they mistreated their workers, their work force was damaged to the point of being inefficient. Because their work force was inefficient from mistreatment, there were dangerous machine failures COMMONLY. Workers were commonly injured near-fatally.
And who was made responsible for these disasters? The work force. And they had to continually put up with it because they had no choice, because that corporation had locally monopolized 'labor benefits'. There was no competition that could support these workers. The choice was to have your family starve to death, or to incredulously suffer the rest of your days.
Inb4 'Lol so you're just arguing based upon personal feelings.' No. I have the opinion based upon experience, and approximately 0 evidence pointing to the idea that most corporations behave differently then this.
Let alone all of them. Ha. What poppycock absolutism. I believe in evolutionary morality, but that by no means infers that I am so naive as to believe that a system designed to allow greed to prosper is somehow not dominated by the greedy having absolute power within it.
(who provide goods, services and jobs through voluntary deals)
A corporate oligarchy is no better then a monarchy. The only difference is that instead of one corporation ruling everything, a group of corporations can form informal agreements that bypass laws and allow them to share power between one another while giving us the illusion of 'choice' and 'voluntary deals'.
This is a pathetic shame of an excuse. If I live in a small town and have to choose in between Burger King and McDonald's because both corporations have destroyed the small business restaurants in the town, I don't have a real choice in where I eat. Just because it's two corporations instead of one doesn't mean jack shit. Both are greedy, both are all-powerful. Both have enough money between them to control the eating habits of the entire fucking world. And instead of trying to destroy each other, they could just share power together and control us all together and eliminate all the struggle involved between them since they're so goddamn powerful.
Yes, it IS logical that the more people whom share power, the less power each individual has. I am not a fool to this fact. But the difference in power between a single individual and a dozen individuals whom collaborate together is approximately... nothing. The movie 'Thank You For Smoking' details this very blatantly and with equal logic. Why would greedy corporate CEO's compete with one another when they can share power and eliminate rising small businesses they don't want to let into their club? There's less struggle involved, and while there's less power per individual, there's more convenience and less stress involved.
And that's how the selfishness of big business works. It's a balance of maximum power versus the convenience of holding onto it. Why do you think Hostess liquidated? Not because of the unions, but because the CEO's of Hostess saw their laborers getting out of hand, so they decided to give TREMENDOUS bonuses to themselves and then file for bankruptcy. Then they blamed everything on their laborers. Why would they do this? Why would they destroy their business by paying themselves a huge shit ton of cash and then just letting everything fall apart?
Because the convenience of having ethical dealings with their laborers became too much of a chore for them, so they decided to just pay themselves the rest of the company's accumulated wealth up front and then let all those jobs disappear into nothingness while they retire to their dozen beach houses.
This is the problem with our corporatism. It's all about selfishness without enough incentive to balance out their selfishness with morals and ethics. It's a nice thing to think that they have the natural incentive to be moral, but then don't. It required government regulation to prevent complete monopolies and to prevent blatant abuse of workers. And even then... it still goes on, in the shadows, unbeknownst to far too many people because of corporate propaganda and the bribery of politicians into keeping quiet.
God damnit, my monkey man brain just went waaaaaaaaay off track there. My apologies. I my brain is tired, and while I am by no means an idiot, it is quite difficult for me to properly articulate and concentrate. ಠ_ಠ Thus I accidentally miscommunicate... perhaps quite easily. But I don't like going back and trying to change everything I've written, save spelling mistakes, because if I did that, I would obsessively do it and it would end in me being unable to write good arguments as a good rate. So... very simply, I try and remember to be clear and well-articulated as I go.
Exactly, however, the problem with your logic that you think that these evil corporations influence everything and they are pushing for a free enterprise system. If they were, they wouldn't be backing up the politicians moving towards a European system government.
I think they can influence everything, but that they are outside the system. They can own products and services and control things that way, but they cannot control laws unless the voters or lawmakers let them control the laws.
I don't think most of them are lobbying in support of a government that limits corporate freedom. If they are, I'd jump for joy, because it would imply they have a conscious. But I don't see it. What I saw in the last election was the rich man, backed up by rich men, wasn't voted into office. What I saw last election was corporations loosing, not winning. Perhaps the very few corporations lobbying a more European system are winning, but by no means are all or most corporations winning through the limiting of corporate freedom.
But I suppose, ultimately, you and I just may have two very different looks and definitions on what a corporation is.
Actually I do. However, I think that if you are going to buy an assault rifle there should be a 10 day waiting period.
A 10 day waiting period is a limitation.
But then again, maybe you believe limitations do leave people vulnerable and helpless, but believe that people should be vulnerable and helpless for 10 days when purchasing an assault rifle. That would make sense.
Your idea that me wanting an assault rifle to defend myself from an oppressive government means that I want to kill all voters and government officials is.. well, ridiculous.
That's not what I was trying to imply.
What I was trying to imply, I think, because otherwise I would have been hyperbolic, is that having the desire to defend yourself against the government is the same as the desire to defend yourself against any civilian, and wanting the freedom to easily acquire an assault weapon must be one in the same with being somewhat paranoid.
Let me elaborate.
If you want to be able to freely able to easily obtain a firearm, it's because you want to defend yourself. If you want to be able to defend yourself against other people, but need something like a military grade weapon to do it, then it may be because you are very mistrustful of others (I'd say paranoid, but that could be insinuative, and unless you seem like you are evil or ignorant, I don't want to be insinuative if I can help it). If it's not because you are very mistrustful, then why do you need an assault weapon? Because you want to be prepared? You can be prepared by training heavily, and having that advantage, because we cannot allow you to have an assault weapon without letting everyone have an assault weapon. And if everyone can have an assault weapon as easily as you, that will increase the number of illegal armed conflicts in civilian areas. And since everyone having an assault weapon will increase the number of illegal armed conflict in civilian areas... why would you not be mistrustful of others in the presence of people being allowed to so freely have assault weapons?
As you can see, my brain is leading me back to you either being paranoid, or not necessarily logical.
Unless, of course, you aren't mistrustful of others but still want everyone to be able to freely have firearms out of principle. But if you're holding yourself to such a principle, then excuse me, but I would be inclined to question your morals if you would hold such a principle above the safety of other people.
Since 2000 we have invaded Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan (some of the fighting spilled over into Pakistan), started a proxy war with Syria, passed the Patriot Act and NDAA. Please tell me more about how when the government does bad things that they are destroyed.
Those bad things weren't against the American people. Now YOU'RE going off track in the direction of this topic. At least I apologized for it, ba ha ha ha.
Joking aside, if American politicians required Middle Eastern peoples to hold onto their power, these wars wouldn't have happened. I thought we were speaking of national policies, not international ones... international ones are a far different topic that I would speaking of on far different levels.
We try to spread the word, however, anytime you take a political stance besides "legalize weed" or "legalize gay marriage" everyone puts their hands over their ears.
Because whomever is making a political stance that isn't a bandwagon just don't know how to turn their stance into a bandwagon. If they got help and spread the word in that manner, it would work. If people can jump on a bandwagon like Kony 2012 for a few months, and a bandwagon like the abortion stances for years, then they can jump on any bandwagon provided it is conveyed properly.
The voting body would have control, if most of the voting body wasn't politically retarded. Again, many of them just watch TV around an election time, don't really know to much about the candidates.
If the voting body can be swayed by propaganda funded by the rich and created for politicians, then they can be swayed by propaganda created and dispersed by other intelligent citizens that know what they are doing. Money is power in this country, but money is something from outside the system. We are within it. We, as well as anyone within the system, can say 'no' to money, if we understand that we should.
I hate the rich and think they are far too powerful, but I'm not a complete cynic on this. If I was, I'd be stupid, because if the rich truly had every last ounce of power, this country would be FAR more fucked up then it is. But it's not, because it's design is really quite good, even if it not perfect.
I see your point, however:...
And if you and your neighbors had weapons, you could also resist an oppressive government, together in an organized rebellion. How was your 1. here meant to differentiate normal civilians from government civilians? Sure, you can shoot a criminal directly, and not necessarily a political criminal, but it's basically the same thing, just on a different scale of chaos.
And a civilian hacker cannot have the skills to secure themselves against the government? Or, a civilian hacker cannot have the skills or tools to bypass whatever security there is that other civilians have?
The third one was about determining what you can and cannot do. Both normal and government civilians can do this. Normal civilians can use social or cultural pressure, and government civilians could write up laws which could be enforced. In fact, it's almost no different in any way... except that if you break a government law and you resist them, they can get as violent as you get. Or... well, then again, if you get violent when resisting a civilian, they can get violent back. So, yeah, no real difference.
The difference is scale. Proportion. That is all. One is an unexpected, violent conflict on a small scale, another is a war... which is an unexpected, violent conflict on a large scale.
The point is that both forms of civilians can force you to do exactly the same things. The difference is the scale of political responsibility and normal responsibility, as well as the scale of the consequences.
You assume that these "fuck ups" all eventually come to public knowledge and that they come very quickly. Thats just outright false.
I did not assume this. I said they have to either prepare to be punished, hurry to rectify their mistake, or scurry to cover up their mistake. The last of that list accounts for when they succeed in being not found out.
On the other hand, you seem to assume that it's easy to cover up mistakes. Well, in this information age, it's not. It's very easy for someone to find out somehow. Especially people whom are more paranoid then you and I.
Even if a politician wasn't corrupt, he/she could still make a good salary just sitting around doing nothing. If he/she wants to make an extra bit of money, a special interest group can give them some extra cash to vote a certain way.
Please, if you want to make a lot of money for doing nothing, just start a business with a few friends and write all the contracts. That way you could tailor the fine print to have it so you do none of the work except whatever is really easy.
Furthermore, the kind of stressful responsibility inherent with being an elected official is deserving of a fairly good middle-class salary. I won't get into explicit details, but as I have said in other debates, the quality of a person's reward and living conditions should be based upon their existence as a human being, the amount of work they do, and the amount of suffering their endure.
And take it from me, I know what it's like to be psychologically stressed out. For this very reason, being a politician is something that I imagine would be unimaginable. The pressure of serving people's interests, the pressure of serving party interests, the pressure of serving lobbyist interests, the pressure of balancing your political and social life. Shit, I wouldn't be surprised if many politicians made the mistakes they make because they were simply too overwhelmed with pressure to know any better.
When the right goes to war, everyone is anger (rightfully so) when the left goes to war, some people are angered (even though it should be everyone)
This is another sweeping generalization that I'd rather not explicitly address.
Though, to be totally honest, the 'right', as I am assuming you are defining them, are supposed to be all about the reduction of government. So when they go to war, it makes plenty of sense that everyone will at least be mad that the right isn't being isolationist, and therefore they are being at least a little hypocritical.
This isn't to say I think war is ever justified, unless in the defense of innocent people, but this is to say it makes sense in hindsight of how the 'left' and 'right' function in the United States as parties, which is what likely would influence how people react to each party going to war. You can expect the left to go to war because they believe in no government intervention in anything unless it's for the purpose of preventing harm being done to innocent people... and since 'harm' is unfortunately subjective for most people, this ends in the left using government intervention in a wide variety of cases. What's fortunate is that these usages of government intervention are at least predictable and fall in line with 'leftist' views, as where going to war, as opposed to be isolationist, is contrary to the view of the 'right'.
They are not intentionally irresponsible, if you're going to be corrupt or do something bad you better work your ass off, or else you're getting screwed in the end.
Um... what?
So then... you acknowledge that many mistakes they make are unintentional and that they must work hard to cover up or rectify their mistakes like normal human beings?
I'm sorry, but you just broke my brain. This is one of the things I've been trying to across to you for a while now.
The government is made up of law abiding citizens. So, a law abiding citizens, whether they happen to be in government or not, would only be helpless to criminals to the extent that criminals are able to get guns that are restricted,
Therefore, no, they would be no more or less vulnerable and helpless then they currently are. The only difference would be instead of a psycho for instance being able to kill 20 kids, he'd have been stopped at 10, or 5, or even less.
The government is made up of law abiding citizens. So, a law abiding citizens, whether they happen to be in government or not, would only be helpless to criminals to the extent that criminals are able to get guns that are restricted
Criminals can and will get restricted weapons. Now there is a difference between the average law abiding citizen and most elected officials. While Obama has himself and his family constantly guarded by heavily armed guards, most people are open to being attacked, when guns are restricted and all you get is a lousy pistol and your attacker has an assault rifle, shotgun, even a high powered pistol, you're kinda screwed.
Therefore, no, they would be no more or less vulnerable and helpless then they currently are. The only difference would be instead of a psycho for instance being able to kill 20 kids, he'd have been stopped at 10, or 5, or even less.
Timothy McVeigh committed mass murder with little more than fertilizer, gasoline and a truck. With some contents from your laundry room you could make chlorine gas which was a deadly chemical weapon in WWI. You could always get these guns illegally.
Gun restrictions will not stop violence, and taking guns away only leaves law abiding citizens pitted against government and criminal thugs.
China probably has the most restrictions on ownership of guns to the point where nobody can own a gun, yet it didn't stop a man from killing 22 children at a elementary school all from a knife.
Supporting Evidence:
China
(worldnews.nbcnews.com)
In that particular case 22 children were cut, not killed. I would say gun control worked well in that case.
As as far as needing protection from the government, could you outline a realistic scenario where the people of America would need to use force to overthrow the government?
Well, there many different stories to that case, no surprise it is coming from Chinese media, gun control still didn't work to whatever the real story is. Gun control didn't prevent the violence.
There would be no need to overthrow government as long people don't recognize its authority, so when this happens, government then resorts to violence to protects its authority, so then war breaks out.
Preventing violence all together is important, but limiting the damage that can be done in a violent encounter is also important. It's not one all or nothing thing. There are a dozen things that need to be done, gun control is just one of them.
Your argument is too vague. Please provide a more detailed description of how government (elected by the citizens, and physically operated by citizens) could break down in such a way that the citizens need to overthrow it.
If there are a dozen things that need to be done, name them. Gun control is idiotic, not sure if you gun control already exists, so it should be evident that it only leads to volience as clearly demonstrate last Friday. The only solution is less fun control.
Did you even read to what I typed? There is no need for a detailed description as to how citizens would overthrow a government. Nobody overthrown a government ever, people simply don't accept its authority if the people choose not to accept. The same goes for any type of government, there are many cases where the US government overthrew democracies in Iran, Iraq, Chile and the Congo. Why would US do that?
Gun control has been very effective in other contries so I think "idiotic" may not accurate. Gun control does not have to mean no guns. I just means we should limit the types of guns, clip sizes, require better background checks, no gun show sales, stronger license renewal process, etc. We also need to fix our gun culture. To many people have guns because they are "fun". That's a bad sign. Guns are for hunting or personal protection not a "fun hobby". Video games and the media need to be dialed back a little also.
Ok so your saying You need guns because one day you may decide not to accept the governments authority and you want to be able to shoot the government agents when they come to arrest you?
Ok so your saying You need guns because one day you may decide not to accept the governments authority and you want to be able to shoot the government agents when they come to arrest you?
AH HA HA HA HA HA!
Your bluntness is so brutal, I enjoyed reading it.
Too bad lack of gun restrictions in a market society implies that companies who make money selling guns will advertise their product and contribute to a culture of violence which is certain to alter the way we see guns as a part of problem solution.
The US government is already lobbied to keep up military bases across the world and commit acts of aggression globally. The population isn't immune to this.
taking guns away only leaves law abiding citizens pitted against government and criminal thugs
Some man with an assault-rifle isn't going to fare against the US government. It might have been the case in the 1800's, but not nowadays.
In understanding crime it is important to remove the incentive that motivates it. Promoting guns will only reinforce the good guys-bad guys thinking that blocks understanding and progress. There always needs to be some restriction in at least how gun manufacturers are allowed to encourage the use of their product.
In this world, yes. Gun restrictions leave people more vulnerable against any attack. The major point is not about banning or continuing purchasing weapon. The major point is restriction. I mean selling weapon policy should be regulating more advanced and it should be focus on individual. Try to imagine, any candidate who wants to purchase a gun should be a particular age and also some pshyschological evaluation should be applied to candidates in term of makind decision whether this candidate has enough mental health to obtaining any weapon. Otherwise, gun restricitons is not an answer.
The guys on the left and right ought to be packing =(•̪̀●́)=o/̵͇̿̿/'̿̿ ̿ ¯¯̿̿¯̿̿'̿̿̿̿̿̿̿'̿̿'̿̿̿̿̿'̿̿̿)͇̿̿)̿̿̿̿ '̿̿̿̿̿̿\̵͇̿̿\=(•̪̀●́)=o/̵͇̿̿/'̿̿ ̿ ¯¯̿̿¯̿̿'̿̿̿̿̿̿̿'̿̿'̿̿̿̿̿'̿̿̿)͇̿̿)̿̿̿̿ '̿̿̿̿̿̿\̵͇̿̿\=(•̪̀●́)=
Vulnerable to what? People need to get there heads out there asses, the second amendment was writing in a time where there was no semi automatic weapons and at a time where there was no difference between the weapons government and the people had, so musket vs musket, canon Vs canon, man vs man, now days unless the people can get there hands on stealth fights, drones and nuclear warheads to name a few I "HIGHLY" doubt that the American people can do a dam thing If America does go rogue, so in other words "WHAT THE FUCK YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT"?
There is nothing you the people can do, not win unless the people have weapons to match that of todays government, so the augment that we need guns to protect ourselves from government is a joke, Yes I agree it was a valid point 100 years ago when the playing field was even.
Guns should be given only to people that are willing to undergo a series checks including a psychiatric exam and a safety training coarse for new members, (think divers license but for guns) also "BAN ALL" assault weapons and large clips, those weapons are for war and like I said, "get your heads out you asses" because if our government wanted to go rogue assault weapons or it will be like shooting fish in a barrel, and we the people are the fish.
Basically, if america turns against its people, all we can do is hide. And wait. Like in terminator, the machines were too powerful, but what happened in terminator salvation? A rogue terminator infiltrated skynet.
So with that premise, remember this: there are people who have high authority in this world and hold some very close secrets, that would join the people, rather than the governments.
We don't need jets, drones, or nuclear devices. The idea of citizens defending themselves isn't through straight conventional warfare. We would need to go guerrilla. If we have assault weapons taken away, our only equalizer is gone.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington
Would you say that these men are wrong? The men that created the country you are privileged to live in? They fought the British to gain our independence. The British had better arms, more arms, more men, and the determination to grind us underfoot. They still fought on even against these odds, and WON! "WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?" I tell you. Fight! I am going to fight! God forbid that I ever need to take up arms, but I will if I need to. I am willing to fight for you, even if you want to take away my gun. I am willing to die for you to do what is right, even though you may not appreciate it.
Comment pending. Don't upvote me or downvote me. I will have to consider this again. I said i will downvote you but four people agree to your comment, so maybe there is something im not understanding.
His point is that having assault weapons is pointless for 'defense against the government' because the national military uses weapons which don't even require a manned assault. They could just inexplicably bomb civilian populations into submission, and an assault rifle wouldn't do jack shit against such a thing.
What the hell? Downvoting him, because why? He asked a question with merit, and his point is that assault weapons do not make anyone less vulnerable to stealth bombers and snipers then pistols. His first argument obviously has nothing to do with being vulnerable against criminals. If you couldn't see that, you must have some sort of communication impediment.
If you're going to talk about grammar, fix your own first.
Even though your disputation makes absolutely no sense, I'm not going to be rude like you and downvote you.
They could just inexplicably bomb civilian populations into submission, and an assault rifle wouldn't do jack shit against such a thing.
And that is basically what vulnerability is. And for this reason i am downvoting you.
It is true that my grammar isn't perfect, but i couldn't understand his grammar and i told him to fix it. And i will continue this tradition. I am not implying i am perfect. I need to fix my grammar when grammar needs to be fixed. His argument contained many run ons and run ons becomes confusing.
I am not sorry if you consider me rude. If i was truly sorry, i wouldn't do it again. I do feel bad however. That is why i stated that i am not being rude plus i added a smiley face. I am not being sarcastic, i am being genuine here. And i believe if someone comments on how my bad grammar is, i might recieve negative feeling. Still, that is not reason not to comment on his grammar. In fact, in another perception, it is a kind gesture to note on someone's bad grammar because now he can become more clear in his arguement if he fixes his grammar. Also, noting on how someone's bad grammar, can help others who got confused by reading his argument.
If you're going to talk about grammar, fix your own first.
To me that is equivalent to....If was poor, and i see someone's poor, i cannot give him money unless first i help myself out of my own poor situation.
Edit.
And to be honest, i am on a mission to downvote with reason. It is like an urge. And i do believe i deserve a downvote because i didn't read his entire arguement. And i didn't understand his entire argument.
However after reading yours, i still stand with my choice to downvote him. And you can downvote me too if you find a good enough reason. If you hate downvote, please do not hate me. Hate the CreateDebate system or talk with Andy to eliminate downvoting.
Edit. Again
I thought about it and vulnerability is perceptional. I check the definition of the word again and it means unprotected. That word "unprotected" wasn't in the state of my mind.
I can say by definition, you are not vulnerable unless you are completely unprotected. So if i had a handgun and you had a bazooka, i am not vulnerable.
But in a different perception, outside definition and law, i am vulnerable because a hand gun will do nothing against a bazooka.
I bet you will say that is a contradiction, but that is what perceptions create. And it makes sense to me.
Right, meaning gun restrictions do not leave you vulnerable. Having an assault rifle doesn't make you less vulnerable to a drone strike and thus he had merit to ask 'what would gun restrictions leave people vulnerable to?".
And he is correct to point out that gun restrictions do not leave people vulnerable and helpless against a drone strike.
Therefore your downvote is fucking senseless, you mongoloid.
And for this reason i am downvoting you.
Well, fuck you to then.
You are being rude. Rudeness is not subjective to the speaker, rudeness is subjective to the receiver. You cannot define whether or not you are being rude if people you speak to feel like you are being rude... because that's what rudeness is. If it's not intentional rudeness, then you have leeway to say you were not intending to be rude, but you cannot say you are not being rude when you are the speaker, because that is totally contrary to how the perception of rudeness works.
To me that is equivalent to....If was poor, and i see someone's poor, i cannot give him money unless first i help myself out of my own poor situation.
And that was a completely logical train of thought. You cannot give if you have nothing to give. (of course, poverty doesn't actually work this way, but it's still a logical train of though)
And to be honest, i am on a mission to downvote with reason.
Your reason for downvoting him was senseless. If you didn't understand his argument and thus interpreted improperly, why keep the downvote there? The downvote isn't for disagreement, it's for saying someone's argument was bad. Now that you know his argument wasn't bad, even if you don't agree with it, why are you keeping the downvote?
However after reading yours, i still stand with my choice to downvote him.
What is that, spite? If not spite, you need to explain yourself for this to have any correlative sensibleness with your desire to reasonably downvote people. For as long as it doesn't make sense, it's a contradiction, and either it itself is nullified, or your previous statement was nullified.
No, I will not downvote you. It takes away my own points. I only downvote people who have arguments so invariably bad that I think spending my own points to lower theirs will teach them to write a better argument. But I've known you long enough, Thinker, to understand that this trend you have in your debates is unchanging and I cannot really influence it to be better no matter what I do.
I think you are making a valid point bad by twisting it. He wasn't being rude. Asking for fixing grammar isn't a negative. Giving a reason for a down vote isn't bad. Calm, down man. It isn't the end of the world!
If restrictions were proper, they'd prevent psychopaths from acquiring weapons, and root out criminals dealing in illegal weaponry.
Unfortunately, this political debate has prevented our politicians from sitting down calmly and working out something proper and are instead screaming "BAN ALL GUNZ" or "COMPLETE FREEDOM OF FIREARMS!"
Um, sorry to say, but both of those positions are naive and foolish. One assumes we will always have the resources to root out criminal gun owners, and the other assumes normal people can be trusted to use firearms responsibly.
A total absence of regulation over guns would be like a total absence of regulation over automobile traffic. Sure, you can assume people will organize themselves without government aid eventually, but how many innocent people will die in the process before everyone gets the picture?
A blanket ban on guns would be like making cars illegal and forcing everyone to take the bus or walk on the sidewalks. Sure, people would be safer from their own mistakes, but how long before some psychopath illegally obtains a automobile and plows over 50 people walking on a sidewalk?
This is exactly why issue is so stupid. 'All guns' or 'no guns'; nothing in between with most of you. Both extremes of this argument are going to get people killed.
Which is why, again, I proclaim that no, gun regulations would not leave people helpless if they weren't written for shit. If they're too strict, too relaxed, or just bad overall, people will die. It needs to meet perfectly halfway in between freedom for responsible people to use them and control that prevents criminals and psychopaths from obtaining them.
Most politicians do not favor complete freedom of firearms.
In fact, even the biggest Republicans still admit to believing that some gun control is necessary.
In general, the consensus of politicians is moderate gun control. And some, like Obama, consider banning assault rifles. So really, the average view is left of center.
people like ME want to eradicate most to all gun control. Lucky for people like YOU, politicians will never pass laws in support of my views, but you will be able to claim that they want to just because I have an argument.
Regulation is not the answer. Traffic regulation would be better handled if all roads were privatized, but I'm sure that you don't want to get into that argument since it's so off topic. But government regulating traffic? Yeah, like that works greatly, having some of the largest car accidents EVAR. I mean, think about it, when the roads were made they were made for old ass cars and even buggies. They never thought we'd be using the cars we have today, does this justify banning cars? Or maybe it shows how government legislation is obsolete from day one for it takes a lot longer to change a law than to change the world that the law dictates.
The only level of regulation would be best left up to the state. I've yet to see proper legislation that would keep a psychopath from getting his hands on a gun other than an all out "ban" (which would still do nothing, since there are a dickload of guns already in this country... what, are they going to create a task force that just goes out and finds all the guns?)
Legislation that makes it for everyday Americans to be able to protect themselves will still bring about the possibility of an unstable kid getting his hands on the guns. for the most part, they are inevitable. However, if most people are armed, it would be a lot easier to cut these massacres short.
What you're saying is that "government is the answer... even if they're wrong most of the time." I'm saying "whether government has the answer or not is irrelevant, because they're still not going to do shit in a free society."
All I ever hear from people, in general, is complete freedom of firearms... or the opposite, of course. Politicians don't concern me because they will either do what we want, or they will be voted out of office. Their choice, our gain, either way. Assuming people resist the propaganda of corporations, of course. I'm being a tad optimistic with that previous few sentences.
Lucky for people like YOU, politicians will never pass laws in support of my views, but you will be able to claim that they want to just because I have an argument.
Well, as I said above, I'm not concerned specifically with politicians. I see us as the basic will behind politicians, so when I ambiguously mention politicians, you can assume I don't mean the opinions of the generic 'politician' and instead the opinions the politician is meant to emulate: ours.
With that said, I care less about what politicians think and more about what you and I think. Politicians not having an opinion that relates to having blanket ban or complete freedom on guns is a good thing, because otherwise, that would mean that A. significant amounts of civilians actually believe this kind of shit, or B. significant numbers of wealthy people believe this kind of shit.
Or, C., Significant numbers and amounts of wealthy and normal people believe this kind of shit.
But based on what you say, this isn't the case. Good. Very good. If it wasn't that way, I'd imagine there would we far more violence and panic among our population if the real argument was, majorly, blanket ban vs. complete freedom.
So, whatever your next arguments are, I'll have to thank you for giving me optimism. If most politicians are centrist on this issue, then that means these debates are actually a non-issue in the big picture, and tragedies that happen are simply collateral while both parties try and figure out the perfect method to prevent as many tragedies as mathematically possible.
Thank you, Pyg.
Traffic regulation would be better handled if all roads were privatized, but I'm sure that you don't want to get into that argument since it's so off topic.
Oh no, we can get as deeply off-topic as you'd like. You've already rendered this a non-issue in relation to my position, with stating what facts you have stated, since I take the completely centrist position, and you have informed me most politicians are centrist on this issue.
With that said, privatization needs to be completely broken and rebuilt from the ground up with temporary laws and regulations before I'll even come remotely close to believing even more things in this nation should be allowed to be privatized. Especially roads... I mean, really? In our current societal state, the rich would likely cause traffic accidents on purpose so they can sue people using their roads and become even more absurdly, unnecessarily wealthy.
But government regulating traffic? Yeah, like that works greatly, having some of the largest car accidents EVAR.
And how exactly would car tragedies be not worse if there were no laws?
Sorry to say this, but your point in these two sentences strikes me as clinically insane. No laws stopping drunk drivers? No laws preventing semi-truck drives from speeding?
Either you are extremely naive to think that people wouldn't die in droves from such a thing, because normal people are perfect apparently, or you are insane. Or you just need to explain yourself further.
I mean, think about it, when the roads were made they were made for old ass cars and even buggies...
I'm thinking about it, and I've come to the conclusion that the rest of your paragraphs, starting here, has nothing to do with anything.
The roads were made for older cars, and then have been slowly built upon for decades in an attempt to keep up with the technology in cars.
I never said cars should be banned. You misread what I wrote if you think I said this. Or perhaps I am misinterpreting what you yourself mean, but if you didn't misread what I wrote, then what does asking me if a ban on cars is justified have to do with anything? Perhaps you are posing the hypothetical question that because roads can't keep up with the technology of cars, you wonder if this justifies banning cars? Well... again, how do those things correlate? If cars are too fast for the roads, then the government closes the roads and builds on them. They hire people for a public works project, which stimulates local economies. Bam, boom, problem solved.
As for the last sentence of your paragraph... I don't know where the hell you're from, but where I come from, local laws change all the time when an issue arises. Shit, even when I was growing up, I'd listen to my parents discuss semi-annually on something they were going to vote on.
Perhaps on a federal level, laws take a long time to change, but that's why federal laws are supposed to be general and be able to accommodate most of everyone in the country, as where things like traffic should be regulated by the states and counties... because it's about the scale of things, yes?
I've yet to see proper legislation that would keep a psychopath from getting his hands on a gun other than an all out "ban"
Neither have I. What's your point? If it's a federal-level law, it's going to work slowly if it's going to be effective. This is why I don't let myself get so upset over the slowness involved in the federal legislature, executive branch, and judicial branch... because they are meant to go slow.
At least, I don't get upset over it when both sides are saying meaningful things. If one or neither side is saying something meaningful during a back and forth, that's when I start getting riled up.
(which would still do nothing, since there are a dickload of guns already in this country... what, are they going to create a task force that just goes out and finds all the guns?)
A blanket ban would indeed be a stupid idea... because, as you say, that would imply the federal government would need to devote resources to collecting everyone's guns, everywhere, and then an upkeep of resources rooting out illegal gun trade... which would be just as disastrous as Prohibition, more or less.
But I have yet to see why you think absolute freedom would be a good idea. So far, all I get the impression of is that you are naive and think that normal everyday people can be trusted with no restriction on military-grade weapon distribution. And while I think it would be stupid to not assume that a great deal of people have the qualifications to be safe when handling a firearm, this isn't to say there should be totally no regulations.
There should be somewhere that freedom and order can meet in the middle. Letting just anyone have a firearm is retarded. Letting nobody have one is also retarded.
However, if most people are armed, it would be a lot easier to cut these massacres short.
If most people are armed, the number of massacres will increase, while their durations will decrease. To think otherwise is naivety.
So, I would rather meet complete freedom and complete control halfway, and propose that we do something that outright prevents deaths instead of making the death proportions per massacre different.
A ban on guns would equate to massacres like the one recently which killed more then a dozen people. Shit, if guns were banned, the massacres would be likely to happen so rarely it would be almost never. BUT, the civilian population would be unarmed, so during a massacre with a gun-ban, the death toll would be incredulous.
An unregulated gun market would equate to massacres happening like with street gangs in metropolises, except they would happen more often, and every. Oh, but, they would be much shorter, and the casualties would likely be minimal... but there would still be casualties.
Looking at the above options, neither are acceptable. We decrease death, not shift it in the balance of one extreme or the other.
What you're saying is that "government is the answer... even if they're wrong most of the time." I'm saying "whether government has the answer or not is irrelevant, because they're still not going to do shit in a free society."
If the government didn't 'do shit' to protect us, then we wouldn't have the police, the national guard, the armed forces, etc. Legislation is the same as those things... laws are meant to stabilize society so people don't riot and murder and pillage and rape. So we're protected from things more basic then a nuclear strike or invasion from another country.
This society isn't totally free. If it were, slavery would still be legal. If it were, murder and rape and other evil acts would not welcome imprisonment or capital punishment.
What this society is, or what it's supposed to be anyway, is the freedom to do anything, so long as you aren't harming other people, directly or indirectly.
So your point is moot in this context. I don't care what the government does in a free society, because this is not a totally free society. Anarchy and totalitarianism are both bad things, so I want neither of them. I want something that is free enough, and orderly enough. Not something that is all-or-nothing.
Why do you people refer to the government as people who are about to shoot you. As far as I know Barack Obama is not going to order the military to kill us all. And as far as criminals and psychopaths go, if they can't get weapons then they won't shoot us. Remember the military/government will not go all Saddam Husein on us and neither will criminals/psychopaths if they cannot get they're hands on a weapon.
It is one thing to assume that everyone is good and will not hurt you,and another to give up the means to protect yourself from the possibility that you are wrong.
What kind of question is this? This question is not open ended enough thus presupposing that people are vulnerable and helpless as opposed to...what? Happy and free.
No since they may still learn martial arts that could save them from physical trials. It is also in the intellect of the user in which power should be given. Nowadays, guns are always used for the use of killing another person just because of being provoked, whereas martial arts would just momentarily paralyze the attacker. Well, that depends on the one doing the defense.
It doesn't really work though if the bad guy has a gun, while you only can rely on your martial arts training. The guy with the gun would win. Bad guys are the people that give guns a bad rap. Guns are an equalizer; a way for the weak to defend against the strong. Guns are not designed so you can be provoked. Every firearm owner knows that since they own a weapon, they must carry the responsibility of owning it, taking care of it, and being smart with it. Let me give you an example:
99.9% of guns in American are not used in a crime, only .1% are. Only 4% out of that .1% were guns that were obtained legally. Guns are used 4 times more in self defense and in those cases, 98% of the time it is not fired. The gun owner has a choice when confronted by a criminal. 1.He can not confront him and hope he leaves him alone (which is the same response of someone not owning a gun, what many people would somehow rather have). 2.He can confront the guy, brandish his weapon, and NOT shoot. The mere threat of a gun will deter almost all criminals as seen in the example above. 3.He can confront the guy, and pull the trigger. This a rare occurrence, but it can happen. A person pulling the trigger must know the consequences of doing so, and they take that into account. I believe that I will only pull the trigger if I feel that my life, or another's around me, is in danger of being taken away. Would you say I was provoked to kill and had a choice to leave, or forcefully put in the life-and-death situation and defended myself? Gun control doesn't work.
The facts above where from the FBI and the CATO Institute. Kinda hard to dispute those.
There are other weapons, you don't need a gun to defend yourself. Ever heard of nunchucks? Yea.... And if somebody is shooting at you, Go all Captain America on the poor bastard's ass and use a super epic shield to deflect the bullets and then hit them in the face with it.
