Guns

[prisonermonkeys]

If you are going to try to make use seem hypocritical use something we were alive to witness as adults, and supported.

I'm not trying to make you seem hypocritical - you're doing a pretty good job of that all on your own. After all, it's okay for your side of the argument to refer to events that happened two hundred years ago in defence of the Second Amendment, but it's not okay for my side of the argument to refer to events that happened sixty years ago when questioning the primary rationale behind the Second Amendment.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not trying to make you seem hypocritical - you're doing a pretty good job of that all on your own. After all, it's okay for your side of the argument to refer to events that happened two hundred years ago in defence of the Second Amendment, but it's not okay for my side of the argument to refer to events that happened sixty years ago when questioning the primary rationale behind the Second Amendment.

But the people you are accusing of supporting those events and not fighting them, us, were not alive. No one said those events were OK, did we? No. I'm sorry I lacked the ability to fight them.

Of course, I would have begun by fighting them in the public in debate long before picking up arms. Arms are for when all else fails. Your ability to refuse to understand that some of the things you mentioned were stopped without firing a gun points to your desire to find anything to discredit the idea, without actually researching.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But the people you are accusing of supporting those events and not fighting them, us, were not alive.

I never said that. I simply asked how proponents of the Second Amendment - whoever they are - could stand by the assertion that it is necessary to stand up to an oppressive government, and yet ignore oppression. Or doesn't it count when the government oppresses somebody else?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If laws are suppose to be concise and objective how does a government that breaks said objective voted upon doctrines/mandates/laws/legal rights/constitution become subjective? If a government starts forcing citizens to house military personnel who take their guns as well and disallows people 18 or older to vote as has seen to be objectively allowed... Is that not oppressive?

 

[kennylmao]

Reading this thread is fascinating for someone living in a country where guns are banned. I initially thought the point of owning a firearm for Americans was solely for self defense.

After reading through, I think I understand that the point of guns is to act as sort of a leverage tool. You can never trust a government too much and when things go bad, you'll have an easy bargaining chip. And what is more valuable than life itself? It also keeps the government in check because we all know, power corrupts. Without guns, an oppressive government with the power of the military and law enforcement can do whatever the hell they want. Just arrest any dissidents, throw them into jail and let them rot indefinitely, under various laws (which might be pure BS laws) a country might have.

I never said that. I simply asked how proponents of the Second Amendment - whoever they are - could stand by the assertion that it is necessary to stand up to an oppressive government, and yet ignore oppression. Or doesn't it count when the government oppresses somebody else?

Didn't know the planet is under one world government now. Let's be honest, who the hell cares? A country will do anything in the best interest of itself. People still live their comfortable lives while others go hungry despite humanity having enough food to feed everybody. People living in dictatorships being deprived of their basic human rights and nobody gives a ****. Humans are selfish and only care about themselves.

And about things going bad after a revolution, so you are content with an oppressive government rather than having even a slight hope for change? Well, I guess the answer will depend on the degree of oppression a government might conduct in.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And about things going bad after a revolution, so you are content with an oppressive government rather than having even a slight hope for change?

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Look at the recent coup in Thailand. It was predicated on breaking a bloody political stalemate that showed no signs of resolving itself as supporters of opposing political parties held the High Court hostage by threatening violent civil disobedience unless the courts ruled in their favour. When negotiations failed, a coup was pretty much the only way to end the standoff. When the new government took power, they instigated martial law to get the protesters off the streets. But once the protesters were cleared out, they never rescinded the order for martial law.

Look at the second Egyptian coup. When al-Sisi removed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood from power, they started arresting journalists who had reported that Egypt was in a state of civil turmoil, and charged them with aiding the Muslim Brotherhood by broadcasting false news implying Egypt was in turmoil when the government did not recognise it.

These are just two recent historical example of countries undergoing a revolution, only for the new governments to immediately misuse their newfound power to remain in control, thereby becoming no better than the government that they overthrew, regardless of their original intentions.

Proponents of the Second Amendment argue that the right to bear arms is necessary to resist an oppressive government. But, if such a resistance is needed, then my question is how those proponents can be so sure that they, like those governments in Egypt and Thailand, won't become as bad as the regime that they resisted.

After all, if you look back through human history to the French Revolution, the most consistently stable uprisings that have introduced democracy have been unarmed uprisings. Like the Velvet Revolution and the Orange Revolution.

 

[synchromesh]

What's the difference between an AK-47 and AK-74? The ammo. I think 9mm should be the limit.

 

[FoolKiller]

I never said that. I simply asked how proponents of the Second Amendment - whoever they are - could stand by the assertion that it is necessary to stand up to an oppressive government, and yet ignore oppression.

Has anyone you are talking to right now done that? Do you expect us to argue the decisions of our dead grandparents? I can't and you cannot possibly think we should. You keep beating a drum demanding answers about something multiple generations ago. Here is the answer. I don't know because I wasn't there. Is that simple and concise enough for you?

Of course, your assumption assumes the whole country just said, "Go America!" and ignores that fact that every war, even World War II, was protested in the US. Stop assuming that 1) the people I this thread can even speak to the events you mention and that 2) no one did stand up back then. Just because you heard nothing about it means absolutely nothing, other than you are ignorant of this country's rich history of protest.

You should also keep in mind that Cold War era things overseas were often done behind the scenes and by the time it became public knowledge it was over with and those responsible were old.

Or doesn't it count when the government oppresses somebody else?

Of course it counts. Has anyone said otherwise? You keep saying it. Show one person, other than you, who said it in this conversation. We cannot speak for the opinions of others.

Proponents of the Second Amendment argue that the right to bear arms is necessary to resist an oppressive government. But, if such a resistance is needed, then my question is how those proponents can be so sure that they, like those governments in Egypt and Thailand, won't become as bad as the regime that they resisted.

Don't fight Hitler, you might get Stalin? Please continue to compare completely different cultures. That makes total sense.

After all, if you look back through human history to the French Revolution, the most consistently stable uprisings that have introduced democracy have been unarmed uprisings. Like the Velvet Revolution and the Orange Revolution.

Oh, so you do understand why arms weren't raised in US history during the events you keep bringing up. Wow. Up until now I thought you were saying we had to be guns or nothing. It makes me wonder if you have some sort of anti-American/gun bias that makes you think we aren't capable of trying something peaceful first.

Hint: People who support gun rights aren't insane idiots ready to start killing at the tiniest hint of government overreach. Some of us support the right but don't actually own a gun.

Look at the NSA situation. Serious public discourse happened without a single shot being fired. See, most people are rational and only meet violence with violence. They don't just show up and start shooting.

So to throw this 110 page debate off....

I'm starting to like the Walther PPK. A lot. But I can't find any. I'm not looking for a Nazi era either, but one to own.
Are the PPKs (not the s model, just plural ppk) not for sale in the US or what? I find it odd that they say made in US and I can't find any new ones...

What's the difference between an AK-47 and AK-74? The ammo.

I believe you two might be looking for the real guns thread.

I think 9mm should be the limit.

With what appears to be your basic lack of understanding of guns and bullets, your rule will allow for things like a an AK-47.

 

[synchromesh]

Has anyone you are talking to right now done that? Do you expect us to argue the decisions of our dead grandparents? I can't and you cannot possibly think we should. You keep beating a drum demanding answers about something multiple generations ago. Here is the answer. I don't know because I wasn't there. Is that simple and concise enough for you?

Of course, your assumption assumes the whole country just said, "Go America!" and ignores that fact that every war, even World War II, was protested in the US. Stop assuming that 1) the people I this thread can even speak to the events you mention and that 2) no one did stand up back then. Just because you heard nothing about it means absolutely nothing, other than you are ignorant of this country's rich history of protest.

You should also keep in mind that Cold War era things overseas were often done behind the scenes and by the time it became public knowledge it was over with and those responsible were old.


Of course it counts. Has anyone said otherwise? You keep saying it. Show one person, other than you, who said it in this conversation. We cannot speak for the opinions of others.


Don't fight Hitler, you might get Stalin? Please continue to compare completely different cultures. That makes total sense.


Oh, so you do understand why arms weren't raised in US history during the events you keep bringing up. Wow. Up until now I thought you were saying we had to be guns or nothing. It makes me wonder if you have some sort of anti-American/gun bias that makes you think we aren't capable of trying something peaceful first.

Hint: People who support gun rights aren't insane idiots ready to start killing at the tiniest hint of government overreach. Some of us support the right but don't actually own a gun.

Look at the NSA situation. Serious public discourse happened without a single shot being fired. See, most people are rational and only meet violence with violence. They don't just show up and start shooting.




I believe you two might be looking for the real guns thread.


With what appears to be your basic lack of understanding of guns and bullets, your rule will allow for things like a an AK-47.

I thought the 47 variant used rifle ammo, the 74 being a Submachine gun. I don't know much about guns though.

 

[Lizard]

A country will do anything in the best interest of itself.

I somewhat agree but this point is hugely debatable.

 

[kennylmao]

I somewhat agree but this point is hugely debatable.

A couple billion in aid money here, some peacekeepers there. Maybe an invasion or two.

You're right. What I tried but failed at saying was, it would be unlikely for ordinary citizens to use their guns to stop the government from oppressing others. It is an external problem and doesn't affect them directly, the same way famine in poor countries doesn't affect them directly. A short lived protest, some Facebook shares (because I help solve hunger by sharing this few bytes of data) and the whole thing dies down. Life goes on. Oppression goes on. They'd be even more unlikely to do so if they're convinced the government is in the right.

 

[FoolKiller]

I thought the 47 variant used rifle ammo, the 74 being a Submachine gun. I don't know much about guns though.

I don't know what you are getting at, or how it applies to this thread.

Is "submachine gun" ammo better or worse?

They'd be even more unlikely to do so if they're convinced the government is in the right.

Which is why they make you afraid of someone or something first. They have WMDs and want to kill us, they house terrorists, they are terrorists, Axis of Evil, etc.

And once you get the people fully accepting of that idea overseas then you get it slowly happening at home, without noticing until it is too late.

 

[Brett]

I thought the 47 variant used rifle ammo, the 74 being a Submachine gun. I don't know much about guns though.

The AK-74 is not a submachine gun. The AK-74, assuming it is select fire, is an assault rifle just like the AK-47. The biggest difference between the AK-47 and the AK-74 is the rounds that each fire. Both use intermediate rifle rounds. The AK-47 uses the 7.62x39mm, while the AK-74 uses the 5.45x39mm round.

That is also why the AK-74 is not a submachine gun. Submachine guns use pistol calibers, i.e. 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, etc. Examples of submachine guns include the H&K MP5, H&K UMP, Uzi, Thompson, Sten, among many others.

The only way I could see confusion with the AK-74 is with the AKS-74U. The AKS-74U is a very short weapon, but is not a submachine gun because it still fires a rifle round. Shortened rifles are carbines, i.e. the M4A1 is a carbine version of the M16 or the AKS-74U to the AK-74.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Don't fight Hitler, you might get Stalin? Please continue to compare completely different cultures. That makes total sense.

See, this is why I don't think your arguments have any credibility - you keep taking my comments out of context.

Did I say "don't fight Hitler because you might get Stalin"? No, I did not.

You know perfectly well what I was talking about. There have been dozens of examples throughout history where the government that takes power after an armed uprising has been no better than the government that they removed from power (and in many cases, they have been worse). Do they refer to revolutions that have taken place in cultures other than your own? Yes. But here's the operative term - cultures. Plural. This is a trend that can be observed in multiple revolutions across multiple cultures throughout history.

So my question to you is this: if, in the event that the people must take up arms to resist an oppressive government, how can you be so certain that the people won't become as oppressive as the government they resisted?

Feel free to duck and weave to avoid answering the question again. It's all that you have been doing so far.

 

[Swagger897]

So my question to you is this: if, in the event that the people must take up arms to resist an oppressive government, how can you be so certain that the people won't become as oppressive as the government they resisted?

You're asking to get an answer from an unsolvable question unless complete freedom is taken away. From my thinking, who would want to live like that?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And you're making the assumption that, should your complete freedom be taken away, you will somehow be able to undo all of that and restore your previous way of life without succumbing to the pitfalls that the vast majority of revolutions have encountered. An assumption that you are basing on nothing more than a gut feeling.

 

[Swagger897]

And you're making the assumption that, should your complete freedom be taken away, you will somehow be able to undo all of that and restore your previous way of life without succumbing to the pitfalls that the vast majority of revolutions have encountered. An assumption that you are basing on nothing more than a gut feeling.

No, not at all. You're far from the idea.

Never did I relate anything to the past in my answer to your query to any previous successful/failed revolution. Where you get this, and that ...

you will somehow be able to undo all of that and restore your previous way of life

... is beyond me.

Your question: Group A resits/possibly overthrows gov't. Group A is successful. Group A then turn into oppressive gov't they just overthrew.
To hold double standards is one thing, yet to control a country by a double standard is ridiculous, one you apparently presume would/could happen. If anyone is assuming/presuming something on a gut feeling, it's you.

Say North Korea and how they are set up. Before the fat baby's daddy died, this was put into effect. No one has the balls to break out of as strict of a death grip as they have, armed only with sticks, stones, and whatever else they may/may not have. Now I'm not sure if there is anyone over there who actually like to reside there, or have the expressions they do to live; my view is the latter of the two.
Anyways, what does the NK gov't have to fear from peasants who can't do anything about them? Nothing. What can be done about it? Nothing. What will happen of it? Nothing.

Unless 400lb pigs can fly over there and crush people to death, nothing will change on that poor strip of land.

 

[Exorcet]

See, this is why I don't think your arguments have any credibility - you keep taking my comments out of context.

Did I say "don't fight Hitler because you might get Stalin"? No, I did not.

You know perfectly well what I was talking about. There have been dozens of examples throughout history where the government that takes power after an armed uprising has been no better than the government that they removed from power (and in many cases, they have been worse). Do they refer to revolutions that have taken place in cultures other than your own? Yes. But here's the operative term - cultures. Plural. This is a trend that can be observed in multiple revolutions across multiple cultures throughout history.

So my question to you is this: if, in the event that the people must take up arms to resist an oppressive government, how can you be so certain that the people won't become as oppressive as the government they resisted?

For the sake of clarity, what's the motivation behind asking? As I said before, they're good questions to ask but they don't really have anything to do with the validity of the second amendment. That a revolution can go bad doesn't suddenly revoke people's right to self defense. It is something that people staging a revolution should consider. But that's a totally different topic.

Touching on that topic, it would be good to have the goals for the revolution printed clearly in advance. The goal should be to restore a government that will respect peoples' rights. This won't stop other groups with a different goal from reaching for power though. Should fighting breakout against that group after the fight with the oppressive government is over, it's just a continuation of self defense.

And you're making the assumption that, should your complete freedom be taken away, you will somehow be able to undo all of that and restore your previous way of life without succumbing to the pitfalls that the vast majority of revolutions have encountered. An assumption that you are basing on nothing more than a gut feeling.

Guns aren't the only solution to a problem, nor are they meant to be the ultimate solution to everything. They are one solution and they have a time and a place. Again, it's not about breaking out grenade launchers when the government goes off track. It's about respecting rights and leaving the population able to defend themselves with force should the need arise. There's no guarantee that after a few bullets have flown through the air that everything will be fine, but there is nothing that will guarantee that anyway so it's hardly a concern.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

For the sake of clarity, what's the motivation behind asking? As I said before, they're good questions to ask but they don't really have anything to do with the validity of the second amendment.

One of the major arguments put forward by proponents of the Second Amendment is that it empowers the population to defend themselves against an oppressive government. And that's fine - but my issue is that the argument doesn't go any further than that. There have been plenty of historical examples of armed uprisings that have done considerably more harm than good. In the event of an armed uprising in the United States, it is a set of issues that the people will have to address. There's no escaping it.

So what's the motivation in asking? Well, it feels like a bit of an excuse - that the proponents will make that argument to protect their rights, even if there is no willingness to follow through on it.

Think of it like this: if you get cornered in an alley by a mugger, and you pull a gun to defend yourself, then you have to be willing to pull the trigger. Whether or not you actually do pull the trigger is beside the point; you can't rely on the sight of a gun to frighten the mugger off. I see the same faulty logic in play here - to my mind, proponents of the Second Amendment are relying on the idea of a civilian revolt being a deterrent that they will never have to follow through on. That's why I am asking the questions that come with the implications of an uprising.

My other issue is that the Second Amendment is frequently being presented as the last line of defence between freedom and tyranny. The only problem is that where the need for the Second Amendment is presented as an absolute, the recognition of tyranny and oppression is not. There have been plenty of examples of oppression that have not been met with people resisting it. The coup in Guatemala is a prime example of this. It was oppression - the government engineered a coup against a democratically-elected foreign government and put in place a brutal dictatorship because that dictatorship was more willing to deal with the government. And yet, when I raise this point, proponents of the Second Amendment counter this with "you can't expect us to endorse/defend the actions of a government that existed before we were born", before immediately contradicting themselves by pointing out the need to take up arms against a government two hundred years ago.

If the Second Amendment is as fundamental as its proponents claim it to be, then by their own logic, all forms of government oppression are equally bad. For them to then ignore that oppression is hypocritical and undermines their position that the Second Amendment is so fundamentally important.

 

[Swagger897]

but my issue is that the argument doesn't go any further than that.

What do you mean, the extent/range of weapons a civilian may hold?

There have been plenty of historical examples of armed uprisings that have done considerably more harm than good. I

I don't recall many (any) revolt over the infringement of that state's constitution and when the use of firearms was used to hold their cause.

Think of it like this: if you get cornered in an alley by a mugger, and you pull a gun to defend yourself, then you have to be willing to pull the trigger. Whether or not you actually do pull the trigger is beside the point; you can't rely on the sight of a gun to frighten the mugger off. I see the same faulty logic in play here - to my mind, proponents of the Second Amendment are relying on the idea of a civilian revolt being a deterrent that they will never have to follow through on. That's why I am asking the questions that come with the implications of an uprising.

You are thinking of those who will use scare tactics rather than those who will follow through with their actions.
First of all, just about everyone is told in firearms training courses "you don't say 'I'm going to shoot you', you pull out a weapon to end a conflict which will hurt others", defenseless or not.

If the Second Amendment is as fundamental as its proponents claim it to be, then by their own logic, all forms of government oppression are equally bad.

That's the point of Democracy... and sadly the US finds that everyone needs to have the same system.

For them to then ignore that oppression is hypocritical and undermines their position that the Second Amendment is so fundamentally important.

Politicians are corrupt. Citizens can't stop their actions, only them getting into politics itself. Which is why I agree with whoever said "Americans are stupid"... Keep electing corrupt business men, you'll keep getting the same results.

 

[Exorcet]

One of the major arguments put forward by proponents of the Second Amendment is that it empowers the population to defend themselves against an oppressive government. And that's fine - but my issue is that the argument doesn't go any further than that.

No it doesn't, but that's not an issue with the validity of the 2nd amendment.

There have been plenty of historical examples of armed uprisings that have done considerably more harm than good. In the event of an armed uprising in the United States, it is a set of issues that the people will have to address. There's no escaping it.

Yes, and it's probably impossible to completely address that with an unspecified situation. How you'd plan a revolt would depend on the situation. Regardless of that though, force remains an option to use against someone oppressing you.

So what's the motivation in asking? Well, it feels like a bit of an excuse - that the proponents will make that argument to protect their rights, even if there is no willingness to follow through on it.

I feel like this is what Foolkiller was getting at. There is none of this, at least not here in this thread. Maybe some people are hypocritical. That's on them, not a fault of the argument.

Think of it like this: if you get cornered in an alley by a mugger, and you pull a gun to defend yourself, then you have to be willing to pull the trigger. Whether or not you actually do pull the trigger is beside the point; you can't rely on the sight of a gun to frighten the mugger off. I see the same faulty logic in play here - to my mind, proponents of the Second Amendment are relying on the idea of a civilian revolt being a deterrent that they will never have to follow through on. That's why I am asking the questions that come with the implications of an uprising.

I don't agree, I don't see people here taking that position.

I think that the implications of an uprising are very real concerns, but not something you can just address generally. The closest you can come to that is something like what I mentioned in my last post, in that you make it clear that the goal is protection of rights. There are a ton of variables however.

[quot]My other issue is that the Second Amendment is frequently being presented as the last line of defence between freedom and tyranny. The only problem is that where the need for the Second Amendment is presented as an absolute, the recognition of tyranny and oppression is not. There have been plenty of examples of oppression that have not been met with people resisting it. The coup in Guatemala is a prime example of this. It was oppression - the government engineered a coup against a democratically-elected foreign government and put in place a brutal dictatorship because that dictatorship was more willing to deal with the government. And yet, when I raise this point, proponents of the Second Amendment counter this with "you can't expect us to endorse/defend the actions of a government that existed before we were born", before immediately contradicting themselves by pointing out the need to take up arms against a government two hundred years ago.[/quote]

The points trying to be made are 1, that an armed population has worked at least once and that 2, that even if some people are hypocritical that can't be applied to everyone. There isn't a contradiction here because the reasoning behind bringing up the US Revolution is not the same as that dismissing the action/inaction of people regarding oppression.

Also this line:

"you can't expect us to endorse/defend the actions of a government that existed before we were born"

It was made clear that the actions of government can be judged at any time, even far in the past.

Of course, I would have begun by fighting them in the public in debate long before picking up arms.

To be willing to fight them, they must be wrong. So yes, the government was wrong in the past. However:

But the people you are accusing of supporting those events and not fighting them, us, were not alive

And that's the thing. You're trying to make a link where you can't.

The people in this thread are not hypocritical for failing to stand up to oppression in the distance past, because that is physically impossible.

That people in the past have been hypocritical says nothing about individuals here and now.

This is why some parts of your argument haven't been accepted. It's not because one side is picking and choosing parts of the past.

If the Second Amendment is as fundamental as its proponents claim it to be, then by their own logic, all forms of government oppression are equally bad. For them to then ignore that oppression is hypocritical and undermines their position that the Second Amendment is so fundamentally important.

Ignoring oppression does not equate to avoiding the use of force. Also, you can't generalize people's actions. There are some people who would ignore oppression, but why does that make the arguments in this thread less valid? If you used an example where the posters here had a chance to intervene in, but didn't, that would make more sense.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No it doesn't, but that's not an issue with the validity of the 2nd amendment.

When it's being put forward as one of the primary arguments in support of the Second Amendment, it's absolutely an issue to do with its validity.

 

[kennylmao]

Think of it like this: if you get cornered in an alley by a mugger, and you pull a gun to defend yourself, then you have to be willing to pull the trigger. Whether or not you actually do pull the trigger is beside the point; you can't rely on the sight of a gun to frighten the mugger off. I see the same faulty logic in play here - to my mind, proponents of the Second Amendment are relying on the idea of a civilian revolt being a deterrent that they will never have to follow through on. That's why I am asking the questions that come with the implications of an uprising.

Why not? A gun is one of the easiest ways to end a life.

 

[FoolKiller]

See, this is why I don't think your arguments have any credibility - you keep taking my comments out of context.

Did I say "don't fight Hitler because you might get Stalin"? No, I did not.

But it is an example of your idea, is it not? Fighting an oppressive government is a bad idea because we have no guarantee that the next government won't be equally oppressive.

You know perfectly well what I was talking about. There have been dozens of examples throughout history where the government that takes power after an armed uprising has been no better than the government that they removed from power (and in many cases, they have been worse). Do they refer to revolutions that have taken place in cultures other than your own? Yes. But here's the operative term - cultures. Plural. This is a trend that can be observed in multiple revolutions across multiple cultures throughout history.

So are successful revolutions. Are you choosing to ignore those to make your point?

So my question to you is this: if, in the event that the people must take up arms to resist an oppressive government, how can you be so certain that the people won't become as oppressive as the government they resisted?

I can't, but it doesn't negate the need to overthrow an oppressive government. It just creates a further need to be able to bear arms.

Feel free to duck and weave to avoid answering the question again. It's all that you have been doing so far.

Did I answer to your satisfaction now? Probably not.

Well, it feels like a bit of an excuse - that the proponents will make that argument to protect their rights, even if there is no willingness to follow through on it.

How do you know that they aren't willing to follow through on it? Hell, trained soldiers and law enforcement don't know if they are willing to actually kill a person until they are to the point of pulling the trigger.

Your argument is based on a ridiculous assumption that you know how these people think and what they are truly willing to do and not do. The US has had a few recent instances of people showing what they are willing to do, from a peaceful victory at Bundy Ranch to self-professed freedom fighters taking shots at cops. Some are being reasonable and some are going over the line. Fact is, you can't show the lack of willingness because it has been demonstrated, for good or bad.

If you wish to continue to make this claim for today, prove it. Prove that when someone today feels truly oppressed they won't fight. And no, that doesn't mean they should immediately put out a call to arms before trying to do it through other means. They are not the insane gun nuts you want to paint them as.

Think of it like this: if you get cornered in an alley by a mugger, and you pull a gun to defend yourself, then you have to be willing to pull the trigger. Whether or not you actually do pull the trigger is beside the point; you can't rely on the sight of a gun to frighten the mugger off.

And that should negate their right to own the gun with the mindset that they will use it, how? Or it should negate the right to those who are willing to use it, how?

There have been plenty of examples of oppression that have not been met with people resisting it. The coup in Guatemala is a prime example of this. It was oppression - the government engineered a coup against a democratically-elected foreign government and put in place a brutal dictatorship because that dictatorship was more willing to deal with the government. And yet, when I raise this point, proponents of the Second Amendment counter this with "you can't expect us to endorse/defend the actions of a government that existed before we were born", before immediately contradicting themselves by pointing out the need to take up arms against a government two hundred years ago.

I gave you an actual answer, but you chose to ignore it. I wonder why?

Of course, you do ignore how the media covered it and how much the American people knew happened at the time. A point I also already made.

One of the major arguments put forward by proponents of the Second Amendment is that it empowers the population to defend themselves against an oppressive government. And that's fine - but my issue is that the argument doesn't go any further than that. There have been plenty of historical examples of armed uprisings that have done considerably more harm than good.

Hail Hydra!

 

[LeMansAid]

Don't fight Hitler, you might get Stalin? Please continue to compare completely different cultures. That makes total sense.

Cultures change. As it turns out there may well be a growing number of people in your population that would fight for installing an oppressive government. Sharia Law being their goal.

Stop and consider that our current generations will be mere specks in human history. The guns give security idea grows more outdated by the day, and in arming for the "hot war" how many people deludedly choose not to focus on the cold war between government and civilian populations? The war that will long remain relevant.

No bearing on whether or not people should have access to guns, just on how much power those guns afford them, and how much their perception of power may erode the application of their actual power.

 

[FoolKiller]

Cultures change. As it turns out there may well be a growing number of people in your population that would fight for installing an oppressive government. Sharia Law being their goal.

Wow, that's some Bill O'Reilly/Rush Limbaugh thinking there. Sharia Law is coming. Hide your women and children!

The guns give security idea grows more outdated by the day,

How so?

 

[LeMansAid]

Wow, that's some Bill O'Reilly/Rush Limbaugh thinking there. Sharia Law is coming. Hide your women and children!

I see my "posting style" made it utterly impossible for you to not merely read what was there.

So what will America's culture be like in 5000 years time? Remember, we're a speck.

How so?

I'll have to get back to you on this. Responsibilities are holding a gun to my head.

How 'bout that, at least we know it still works to some degree then.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

What's the difference between an AK-47 and AK-74? The ammo. I think 9mm should be the limit.

As you said yourself you really have no idea about the (let's call it national discussion) on guns or the ownership there of, which is why I wonder why you've commented with out trying to be slightly educated. If you had you'd see that the actual round in question kills more people per capita in a year than any rifle round, and perhaps all rounds combined in the region.

But if you want that cap, that is fine. Considering that from a self defense perspective, I'd rather have to kill someone with 12 gauge bird shot or 20, rather than have a high velocity round rip through them and potentially the apartment or house next to mine. Also it still doesn't answer the question why should that be the limit, and what stops it from just going to .22 rounds which are even worse and yet smaller sometime down the road? I mean size doesn't dictate leathality I could get a mac-10 or Glock 18 (I reworked G22 to mimic) and rework it to fire auto illegally and do the same carnage as an ak-47. Are the rounds the same...no, is the danger any different...no.

And to be honest bladed weapons ended more lives in the past year than rifle rounds.

 

[FoolKiller]

I see my "posting style" made it utterly impossible for you to not merely read what was there.

Sorry. I didn't realize you were just seeking to make a drive-by post and not actually have a discussion. I got confused by the public forum format and that you were jumping into a discussion.

So what will America's culture be like in 5000 years time? Remember, we're a speck.[/QUOTE]
Fine, I will humor this argument that a revolution could just lead to another oppressive government.

How does that affect the need and/or right of the people to fight a current oppressive government?



Oh, and I will be shocked if America is still a country, as is, in 5,000 years. That would be an amazing achievement in the course of human history. Of course, however it looks wouldn't change the right or need to rise up against oppression.



That's the issue with the argument. It presuppose that revolution is folly because you don't know what will happen after the revolution. It is the villain you know now is better than the villain you haven't met yet argument. No matter how you make that argument, the idea of a revolution is that the villain you know now is a dick you no longer want to live with and are willing to take the risk with someone/thing new.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why not? A gun is one of the easiest ways to end a life.

You miss my point.

Say you're in a dark alley and a mugger confronts you. You pull out a gun to defend yourself - but you're not willing to pull the trigger. You're counting on the mugger backing off at the sight of the gun.

But what happens if you're not willing to pull the trigger and the mugger isn't deterred by the sight of the gun? What next?