The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:23 am

San Bernadino.

The NRA and the gun nuts' arguments often include the following idea. The US was founded by armed rebels fighting to overthrow the government. They maintain that at any time an American feels unhappy about the state of affairs and needs to use weapons to protect his way of life, he has at hand a readily available arsenal at the locals shops. So that means we just have to put up with the killings, because the 1300 or so people that have been murdered in mass killings in the last two years at a price worth paying for "freedom" to buy a gun.
Now we have the San Berdo outrage, and it is now clear that a couple of unhappy citizens have made a gesture in favour of that very same argument used by the "gun nuts". In fact the argument, it would seem, was designed specifically to enable such an outrage to occur. Well done NRA, this outrage is a prime example of everyone's absolute right to bear arms.

User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.

Post by Kayla » Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:33 am

have you ever met the southern gun nuts?

i live in rural south its infested with them

they are mostly inbred alcoholics who could not overthrow their way out of a wet paper bag let alone a government

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.

Post by Obvious Leo » Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:07 am

Hobbes. The NRA seems to be an immensely powerful and well-resourced lobby group with important connections in the highest ranks of the US government and judiciary. Can you see any way that such a force could be stopped other than through a grass-roots campaign from the bottom-up? Only when the vast majority of "Joe ordinary" US citizens decide that enough is enough is this wanton slaughter going to stop and there seems to be little evidence that such a thing is likely to happen any time soon.

Ansiktsburk
Posts: 255
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.

Post by Ansiktsburk » Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:38 am

This is a topic in which I find a kind of philosophilal despair. That arms, that was invented by the best of humans can be used by idiots to enforce terror among good people. It's like the enlightenment has dug its own grave. Monkey people like Nazists, IS or drug dealers was or are using the fruits of brilliance. Colonialists in India, Whoever who wanted to export opium to 19th century China. I have no clever suggestions, only thing I can say is that it's good that there are so few firearms outside the army and police where I come from. But that might change.

If we compare with Plato's Ideal state, aggression should be made subordinate to government. I believe in that.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.

Post by marjoram_blues » Mon Dec 07, 2015 10:38 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:San Bernadino.

The NRA and the gun nuts' arguments often include the following idea. The US was founded by armed rebels fighting to overthrow the government. They maintain that at any time an American feels unhappy about the state of affairs and needs to use weapons to protect his way of life, he has at hand a readily available arsenal at the locals shops. So that means we just have to put up with the killings, because the 1300 or so people that have been murdered in mass killings in the last two years at a price worth paying for "freedom" to buy a gun.
Now we have the San Berdo outrage, and it is now clear that a couple of unhappy citizens have made a gesture in favour of that very same argument used by the "gun nuts". In fact the argument, it would seem, was designed specifically to enable such an outrage to occur. Well done NRA, this outrage is a prime example of everyone's absolute right to bear arms.
So, the San Bernadino shooting 'is a prime example of everyone's absolute right to bear arms' and ' a gesture in favour of the very same argument used by the 'gun nuts' that 'any time an American feels unhappy about the state of affairs and needs to use weapons to protect his way of life, he has at hand a readily available arsenal at the local shops'.

I would say that the law certainly enabled the couple to 'bear arms' but even without this facilitative law, guns can be obtained illegally and there would be links to 'underground groups'.
If it is a prime example of anything, it is that fear and hatred against others of different beliefs are allowed to grow and fester, within a workplace or school environment. From what I've picked up, this escalated from continual arguments,perhaps bullying - between 2 fundamentally extreme men. Fuelled by increasing acceptance/fear of ISIS, it can be argued that the issue is more about radicalisation combined with overheated interpersonal relationships. For sure 'unhappy about a certain state of affairs'. Both men were defending their values wrapped up in their sense of identity.

No amount of gun control would have prevented this, but was there really a 'need to use weapons to protect way of life'.
Clearly, there are those more prone to violence than others; their preference is fought for rather than thought about.

Another argument is that if everyone had a gun then they could protect themselves from the bad guys. So, there you are lying on a beach with 100's of others - gun concealed in bikini bottom. How much time does it take to whip it out and shoot blindly at a drugged up gunman with heaven on his mind. Flying bullets from all sides; nowhere to flee.

Yesterday,there was an interesting cartoon by the Guardian's Ben Jennings. Basically, Obama was lying face down as a trussed-up hostage. Standing over him stood Uncle Sam with open jacket ( suicide vest ) displaying arsenal of all types.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... n#comments

Here is one comment:
lightacandle
Yes - Uncle Sam's suicide belt - the gun manufacturers.
'The Right To Bear Arms' transforming into the freedom to kill. Wonder when people of the US will realize that that right, in fact, is the opposite of a freedom, and not exactly what the writer's of their constitution had in mind, nor that their intention was that the American govt and its President would be held to ransom by the gun lobby. Unfettered Capitalism! Don't you just love it...

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.

Post by marjoram_blues » Mon Dec 07, 2015 10:47 am

Kayla wrote:have you ever met the southern gun nuts?

i live in rural south its infested with them

they are mostly inbred alcoholics who could not overthrow their way out of a wet paper bag let alone a government
Hi Kayla
I've never met one personally but, hell yeah, I've watched a few American films/documentaries. They terrify me!
They might never overthrow a govt but it would only take one spark igniting their alcohol breath to bring death and destruction to others.
The situation is getting even more dire...they should all be shot !!!
How do you cope?

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Dec 07, 2015 2:29 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:San Bernadino.

The NRA and the gun nuts' arguments often include the following idea. The US was founded by armed rebels fighting to overthrow the government. They maintain that at any time an American feels unhappy about the state of affairs and needs to use weapons to protect his way of life, he has at hand a readily available arsenal at the locals shops. So that means we just have to put up with the killings, because the 1300 or so people that have been murdered in mass killings in the last two years at a price worth paying for "freedom" to buy a gun.
Now we have the San Berdo outrage, and it is now clear that a couple of unhappy citizens have made a gesture in favour of that very same argument used by the "gun nuts". In fact the argument, it would seem, was designed specifically to enable such an outrage to occur. Well done NRA, this outrage is a prime example of everyone's absolute right to bear arms.
So, the San Bernadino shooting 'is a prime example of everyone's absolute right to bear arms' and ' a gesture in favour of the very same argument used by the 'gun nuts' that 'any time an American feels unhappy about the state of affairs and needs to use weapons to protect his way of life, he has at hand a readily available arsenal at the local shops'.

I would say that the law certainly enabled the couple to 'bear arms' but even without this facilitative law, guns can be obtained illegally and there would be links to 'underground groups'.
If it is a prime example of anything, it is that fear and hatred against others of different beliefs are allowed to grow and fester, within a workplace or school environment. From what I've picked up, this escalated from continual arguments,perhaps bullying - between 2 fundamentally extreme men. Fuelled by increasing acceptance/fear of ISIS, it can be argued that the issue is more about radicalisation combined with overheated interpersonal relationships. For sure 'unhappy about a certain state of affairs'. Both men were defending their values wrapped up in their sense of identity.

No amount of gun control would have prevented this, but was there really a 'need to use weapons to protect way of life'.
I think you know this remark is utter bullshit don't you?
In a country such as the UK where a licence and a legitimate reason to own a gun is needed , the very possession of an illegal weapon grounds for arrest.
Gun have to be stored, transported, and ammunition sought and bought. At every step this give the police the chance to arrest and convict. And so it is.
This also means that the gross number of guns is small and the supply illegal too. It is just very fucking hard to get weapons.
In the UK the IRA owed thousands of guns, but they had to remain buried in the ground as the moment they saw the light of day, the gun owner was at major risk of immediate imprisonment. This resulted in almost no gun attacks on the mainland.

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.

Post by Necromancer » Mon Dec 07, 2015 2:42 pm

Please remember that the 2nd Amendment has in part been building the great USA and includes Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the authors of the Human Rights, and that, successfully, USA hosts the United Nations. Now they are even on the move on minimum wage and has come a good way to build a welfare system, facing the criticism held against USA from many nations, among them, many of those in Europe.

One saying: you don't know the value of what you have before you have lost it! Reference to corrupt Europe!

Gun "nuttie" out! :D

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: The Right to bear arms for the purpose of domestic resistance.

Post by marjoram_blues » Mon Dec 07, 2015 3:05 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
marjoram_blues wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:San Bernadino.

The NRA and the gun nuts' arguments often include the following idea. The US was founded by armed rebels fighting to overthrow the government. They maintain that at any time an American feels unhappy about the state of affairs and needs to use weapons to protect his way of life, he has at hand a readily available arsenal at the locals shops. So that means we just have to put up with the killings, because the 1300 or so people that have been murdered in mass killings in the last two years at a price worth paying for "freedom" to buy a gun.
Now we have the San Berdo outrage, and it is now clear that a couple of unhappy citizens have made a gesture in favour of that very same argument used by the "gun nuts". In fact the argument, it would seem, was designed specifically to enable such an outrage to occur. Well done NRA, this outrage is a prime example of everyone's absolute right to bear arms.
So, the San Bernadino shooting 'is a prime example of everyone's absolute right to bear arms' and ' a gesture in favour of the very same argument used by the 'gun nuts' that 'any time an American feels unhappy about the state of affairs and needs to use weapons to protect his way of life, he has at hand a readily available arsenal at the local shops'.

I would say that the law certainly enabled the couple to 'bear arms' but even without this facilitative law, guns can be obtained illegally and there would be links to 'underground groups'.
If it is a prime example of anything, it is that fear and hatred against others of different beliefs are allowed to grow and fester, within a workplace or school environment. From what I've picked up, this escalated from continual arguments,perhaps bullying - between 2 fundamentally extreme men. Fuelled by increasing acceptance/fear of ISIS, it can be argued that the issue is more about radicalisation combined with overheated interpersonal relationships. For sure 'unhappy about a certain state of affairs'. Both men were defending their values wrapped up in their sense of identity.

No amount of gun control would have prevented this, but was there really a 'need to use weapons to protect way of life'.
I think you know this remark is utter bullshit don't you?
In a country such as the UK where a licence and a legitimate reason to own a gun is needed , the very possession of an illegal weapon grounds for arrest.
Gun have to be stored, transported, and ammunition sought and bought. At every step this give the police the chance to arrest and convict. And so it is.
This also means that the gross number of guns is small and the supply illegal too. It is just very fucking hard to get weapons.
In the UK the IRA owed thousands of guns, but they had to remain buried in the ground as the moment they saw the light of day, the gun owner was at major risk of immediate imprisonment. This resulted in almost no gun attacks on the mainland.
So, I took time out of my precious day, dedicated to robotic house-cleaning, to respond to your OP and this is what I get? Huh.
You have zoomed in on one remark, I presume the 'gun control' one, proclaiming it 'utter bullshit'.
In fact, I do agree with you that gun control is necessary - fairly obvious that the less bullets flying around, the less likely people will get shot.
However, as I pointed out, if people want to create havoc and mayhem, there are ways and means. Guns and bomb-making capabilities are out there. Our laws haven't prevented recent terrorist attacks which are of a different nature from the IRA. As far as I recall, the IRA usually issued warnings pre bomb attacks. The ISIS threat is of new breed; it doesn't take much to trigger any nutcase to decapitate or knife any innocent bystander.

My further point is that, given the amount of guns already existing in America, perhaps the focus of prevention should be at grass root level.
Why the acceptance and 'need' to have a gun to sort out fear and anger issues. Employers pay attention to disgruntled employees. Schools need education and integration, not separation. That kinda thing. A counter-narrative.

You are right, we don't have personal guns for protection in the UK...yet.
I wouldn't have one - I might shoot myself in the foot.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5133
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:13 pm

I own and use a shotgun.

I'm not a member of the NRA, I don't go to gun shows or hang out with gun-buddies, I don't read gun magazines.

I have one shotgun, double-barreled...I don't want or need another.

I have this shotgun to hunt and to self-defend.

I've fed myself and others by way of this shotgun and I self-defended against three young men who came into my home unannounced.

I am sympathetic with folks who want to tightly control or ban guns, but, bluntly, I'm not giving mine up and I will not register my gun or submit to any measure of control.

I've committed no crimes, shot up no schools, theaters, malls.

Not seein' why I should be punished for the actions of other folks.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re:

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:34 pm

henry quirk wrote:I own and use a shotgun.

I'm not a member of the NRA, I don't go to gun shows or hang out with gun-buddies, I don't read gun magazines.

I have one shotgun, double-barreled...I don't want or need another.

I have this shotgun to hunt and to self-defend.

I've fed myself and others by way of this shotgun and I self-defended against three young men who came into my home unannounced.

I am sympathetic with folks who want to tightly control or ban guns, but, bluntly, I'm not giving mine up and I will not register my gun or submit to any measure of control.

I've committed no crimes, shot up no schools, theaters, malls.

Not seein' why I should be punished for the actions of other folks.
If you won't register then you are going to have to accept any number of other people owning guns - people that should not ever own a gun, like insane people. Enjoy!

What are you moaning about? You register your fucking car and your house - why not your gun?
How is that punishing you?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5133
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:55 pm

"If you won't register then you are going to have to accept any number of other people owning guns - people that should not ever own a gun, like insane people. Enjoy!"

This is the way of things now, in the U.S.

It is what it is.

#

"What are you moaning about?"

Wasn't aware I was moaning.

#

"You register your fucking car and your house - why not your gun?"

There is no cultural/social movement to ban houses or cars.

Registering a gun should be, could be, the same, but you know damn well it's not.

#

"How is that punishing you?"

The punishment comes when Congress institutes a mandatory buy-back program like Australia’s...since I won't participate in such a thing, I should expect, if I register my shotgun, a visit from the cops to collect my gun. I intend to keep my property. I will not register my shotgun.

Again: I'm sympathetic with those who want guns controlled or banned, but (again) I'm not the bad guy here and I won't completely turn over my capacity to self-suffice to folks who don't have my best interests at heart. Is there any one here who would claim the current crop of U.S. elected folks have any interest on the table but their own? Trust in authority may be your default but it's not mine.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re:

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:18 pm

henry quirk wrote:"If you won't register then you are going to have to accept any number of other people owning guns - people that should not ever own a gun, like insane people. Enjoy!"

This is the way of things now, in the U.S.

It is what it is.

#

"What are you moaning about?"

Wasn't aware I was moaning.

#

"You register your fucking car and your house - why not your gun?"

There is no cultural/social movement to ban houses or cars.

Registering a gun should be, could be, the same, but you know damn well it's not.

#

"How is that punishing you?"

The punishment comes when Congress institutes a mandatory buy-back program like Australia’s...since I won't participate in such a thing, I should expect, if I register my shotgun, a visit from the cops to collect my gun. I intend to keep my property. I will not register my shotgun.

Again: I'm sympathetic with those who want guns controlled or banned, but (again) I'm not the bad guy here and I won't completely turn over my capacity to self-suffice to folks who don't have my best interests at heart. Is there any one here who would claim the current crop of U.S. elected folks have any interest on the table but their own? Trust in authority may be your default but it's not mine.
You are moaning that you might have to register your gun. This will negate the need to ban them you fuck wit.
You register your car because it is a dangerous weapon, and means you can get it back if stolen. There is no downside to this unless you want to commit crime with your car, or steal cars.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5133
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:30 pm

"You are moaning that you might have to register your gun."

I'm not moanin', bitchin', or kvetchin'.

Nice try, though.

#

"This will negate the need to ban them you fuck wit."

HA!

You really believe that?

And: what's with the insult? Why can't we be civil? I understand the strategy. Don't think much of it, is all.

#

"You register your car because it is a dangerous weapon, and means you can get it back if stolen. There is no downside to this unless you want to commit crime with your car, or steal cars."

Don't know how things run where you are, but cars are not registered in the U.S. because they're weapons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re:

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:33 pm

henry quirk wrote: "You register your car because it is a dangerous weapon, and means you can get it back if stolen. There is no downside to this unless you want to commit crime with your car, or steal cars."

Don't know how things run where you are, but cars are not registered in the U.S. because they're weapons.
You objection is not relevant. You just want to avoid thinking about the real issue.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MozartLink and 8 guests