Iowa FTW

[Adam]

And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?

When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.

[TheoK]

And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?

When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.

 

Read what I wrote: "You can't defeat the US military directly, so the alternative is to go for the government directly."

[bodie]

It seems quite bizarre in a place where government are voted in by the people.

Yes.

The original thought was probably either that a government that was voted in would become totally dictatorial or that someone took over by force.

OK,  I understand.  Seems far fetched, though.  Can only think of one scenario where that is likely.  After an all out nuclear world war.  Any such government would not be automatically corrupt, though,  but operational due to the breakdown of social norms.

Thinking a gun would be a useful tool to have in an eventuality like that but doubtful you would get round to using against government. 

[McGiver]

On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.

Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws.  Volunteerism....what could go wrong?

[TheoK]

On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.

Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws.  Volunteerism....what could go wrong?

How could it possibly go more wrong than it is today?

It is incredible that most people don't understand that 99% of the things that are wrong on this planet is because of the state. They think that this is bad but that it would be 1000 times worse without a government. But anarchy works perfectly if the society is just small enough.

[TheoK]

Though capitalism is wrong. Mutualism is right.

[RageBeoulve]

And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?

When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.

I suggest you go back and read the exchange we had earlier about that EXACT same statement. Your reason is failing, but we can dance that dance again, if you want. I'm willing to bet that even though you have a posse which agrees with you, I will still technically defeat your stance because I have a ridiculous amount of information at my disposal on the subject of guns and government, and i'd bet my testicles that you do not. You likely get your information from media, and word of mouth from like minded friends.

Bring it, Adam. It could be fun if you got serious about it. I really enjoy stomping all over disillusionment.

[RageBeoulve]

Don't be so mean, semicolon. Feelings are more important than logic.

Feelings?

How is it not logical to suggest that a person with poor eyesight not be allowed to handle a gun in a state where a legal use is to defend yourself from intruders in your home? If anything, Semi is the one to appeal to feelings when confusing the matter with personal freedoms and other matters of personal bias.

And by the way, nobody actually shot down my proposal for military training for using a gun. Much like a driver's license, you could have a gun license which shows that you are capable of using a firearm correctly, saftley, and skillfully. To qualify with a rifle, i'm pretty sure you have to be able to use it and hit a target, so if you're too blind to do that, you fail and don't get your license?

Is something wrong with that suggestion, O-man?

No, it's a rational one. I would add realistic lighting conditions to the test, though.

I see, I was mistaken about your position. Sorry about that.

[RageBeoulve]

I don't really understand when you say  "shoot the government"

I get the self defence reason.  You know shooting a burglar,  or protecting your family. 

The Police.  Yeah I get this too to some degree.  I find police to be corrupt too.  If the police crazies have guns then can see why you'd want one too.

The Government -  I am lost here.  Why would you need guns?  Do you mean the army.  When/where/why would the US government attack it's own people?

I'm disappointed, Bodie.

When/where/why would the US government attack it's own people?

Why? I have no answer to that question. I don't understand it and never will. When/where? You'll find a wealth of information about murderous governments here.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM

In the associated volume, Death by Government [1], I described fourteen cases in which since 1900 a regime murdered or is suspected of murdering over 1,000,000 subjects and foreigners. Four of these regimes, the Soviet Union, communist China, Nationalist China, and Nazi Germany, each killed 10,000,000 or more unarmed and helpless men, women, and children.
I also gave some descriptive statistics on these and all 204 other cases of democide  (genocide, politicide, massacres, extrajudicial executions, and other forms of mass murder) by state and quasi-state regimes, and non-state groups. These revealed democide's incredible magnitude in this century and well showed the close relationship between the extent of a regime's totalitarian power, or Power in short, and democide. My conclusion was that Power kills, absolute Power kills absolutely

[TheoK]

But these people think: "The American government would never...", "The British government would never...", "The Swedish government would never..." 

[RageBeoulve]

Yeah. Just about every single government in history "has", to some degree at least. You'd think people would learn by now that government must be kept under control. Its a wild animal.

[TheoK]

.

[RageBeoulve]

On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.

Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws.  Volunteerism....what could go wrong?

On that note:
Government is comprised of ordinary people which over time have convinced themselves that they are more. Give ordinary people more and more power, and follow the exact same logic you just used.

The people in our government are not gods, Jag. They are flesh and blood people who shit, lie, and have all the faults of the "ordinary" people you mentioned, because they ARE ordinary people.

Your logic is flawed beyond belief.

[bodie]

I don't really understand when you say  "shoot the government"

I get the self defence reason.  You know shooting a burglar,  or protecting your family. 

The Police.  Yeah I get this too to some degree.  I find police to be corrupt too.  If the police crazies have guns then can see why you'd want one too.

The Government -  I am lost here.  Why would you need guns?  Do you mean the army.  When/where/why would the US government attack it's own people?

I'm disappointed, Bodie.

Why?  Because it isn't obvious to me?  In my life time our respective governments have never become a regime.  So I don't understand why you are disappointed I don't think the same way you do.  I am asking the questions in an attempt to understand where you are coming from.  I shall now read the links you provided with as open mind as I can.


Also, was wondering about your idea about 'training' which I think is good btw.  Wanted to know if training would be aimed at disabling an opponent or would it be more like 'shoot to kill'.   It occurred to me that someone could be easily killed for committing a first time non violent crime.  I know it would be difficult to suss out at the time of the burglary or whatever crime it was so thinking 'shoot to kill' a bit extreme?  Thoughts?

[RageBeoulve]

I don't really understand when you say  "shoot the government"

I get the self defence reason.  You know shooting a burglar,  or protecting your family. 

The Police.  Yeah I get this too to some degree.  I find police to be corrupt too.  If the police crazies have guns then can see why you'd want one too.

The Government -  I am lost here.  Why would you need guns?  Do you mean the army.  When/where/why would the US government attack it's own people?

I'm disappointed, Bodie.

Why?  Because it isn't obvious to me?  In my life time our respective governments have never become a regime.  So I don't understand why you are disappointed I don't think the same way you do.  I am asking the questions in an attempt to understand where you are coming from.  I shall now read the links you provided with as open mind as I can.


Also, was wondering about your idea about 'training' which I think is good btw.  Wanted to know if training would be aimed at disabling an opponent or would it be more like 'shoot to kill'.   It occurred to me that someone could be easily killed for committing a first time non violent crime.  I know it would be difficult to suss out at the time of the burglary or whatever crime it was so thinking 'shoot to kill' a bit extreme?  Thoughts?

Why?  Because it isn't obvious to me?  In my life time our respective governments have never become a regime.  So I don't understand why you are disappointed I don't think the same way you do.  I am asking the questions in an attempt to understand where you are coming from.  I shall now read the links you provided with as open mind as I can.

I'm not disappointed that you don't share my view, i'm just disappointed that you now don't seem to be aware of more than what exists in your vicinity. You didn't seem the type. Oh well. Maybe you'll change your mind.

Also, was wondering about your idea about 'training' which I think is good btw.  Wanted to know if training would be aimed at disabling an opponent or would it be more like 'shoot to kill'.   It occurred to me that someone could be easily killed for committing a first time non violent crime.  I know it would be difficult to suss out at the time of the burglary or whatever crime it was so thinking 'shoot to kill' a bit extreme?  Thoughts?

I think that should indeed be part of the training. In this way, the public who wished to own firearms would have the basic skills a soldier is given, and be able to make those quick judgements based on experience. For instance, one would quickly scan an attacker for weapons. If they are armed with a gun, then kill them. If they are armed with anything else, shoot them in the leg or the arms.

That's an excellent point. Thanks for bringing it up.