30 Bananas a Day!

i'm curious to see what people here have to say about it.

specifically, matters such as

should guns be banned?
should people be allowed to own and use guns?
are guns effective or necessary for self-defense?
do guns promote or reduce violence?

(i think to some extent it pertains to one's health and state of mind, so it may be an appropriate topic for discussion here, but if the moderators feel it has no relevance to this forum, the thread should be removed or at the very least closed.)

in friendship,
prad

edit 12-11-17: please also look at these specific posts which present puzzles of some form:

a variation of what would i do

guns as a deterrent for whom?

banning gun control on 30bad

edit 12-11-20: this has been an excellent discussion particularly thanks to the input by rawbert and jon! the former asked me how i'd answer the questions i ask in this op, so here goes.

edit 13-03-14: our thanks also to iskdude who made the effort to engage in a substantial discussion on the second amendment perspective starting here and continuing here. your sincere and dedicated participation is much appreciated!

should guns be banned?

no.

they are yet another interesting revelation of the crude methods certain segments of humans incorporate to continue their barbaric activities towards each other and other species. as such, they should be kept "lest we forget".


should people be allowed to own and use guns?

no.

guns stink up the place. can you imagine how badly they'd mess up classic kung fu movies like 36th chamber or shaolin rescuers or lady hermit! if anyone is allowed to own and use guns, then it should be done with extreme care and rigorous testing. the specific use should be clearly identified, approved and restricted. for instance, target practice is ok, possibly police work may be ok as well (sometimes), but hunting and just going around killing things is not. i think certain responsible people would use guns with appropriate responsibility, but everyone wouldn't and so, they need to be taken away from those who aren't sufficiently mature and/or competent. we really need to cut out this "right to own firearms" and put it into proper historical context instead of abusing the original intent.


are guns effective or necessary for self-defense?

possibly.

this is a good question prad! self-defense can be initiated in many ways. however, one of the things that guns do is to serve as equalizers. in other words, someone who is physically weaker does become on par with someone physically stronger if they both have guns. in that sense, until we have altered societal behaviors, i can see guns possibly serving in a "fairness" capacity. unfortunately, there is also a possibility societal behaviors will not be altered so long as guns are too freely available.


do guns promote or reduce violence?

both.

for some, having a weapon incites them to use it. for others, knowing the other person has the same weapon leads to a mexican standoff. irresponsible people will act irresponsibly while responsible ones will do otherwise. what is not likely sensible though is to provide the former with weapons and leave the latter without. injustice needs to be fought and those fighting it should be appropriately armed.

it may be that your species will need to go through a big 'gunfight' before it evolves to a more suitable level of behavior - it hasn't done too well over the past millenia even with the help of many noble 'prophets'. imho, it is unintelligent to make these 'prophets' lay down their lives along side so many other innocent bystanders, just so certain delinquent oppressors can have their jollies.

as the high lama tells conway in lost horizon:

"when the strong have devoured each other, then at last, the meek shall inherit the earth."

This discussion is now closed since the op's questions have been answered and thoroughly discussed (and pradtf has plenty of other things to do, presently). It is unlikely that the op will re-open it, though any pk certainly may.

Views: 3111

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

should guns be banned? Yes, but only if this ban includes every human being on the face of the planet, government, and military included. If government gets guns, it's citizens deserve guns to protect themselves from the government.

should people be allowed to own and use guns? I think I answered this with the first answer.

are guns effective or necessary for self-defense? Only against other weaponry. 

do guns promote or reduce violence?  The very nature of a gun is violent and destructive. Hollywood shows us that a conflict resulting in two or more people with guns pointing at each other ends either with violence or the parties talking things out. Take the guns away and the verbal choice becomes more likely. 

iskdude,

i have started afresh due to the difficulty of replying thx to the ning dating-service forum structure. this post is a reply to yours here:

http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:3054202

You see here, you're doing the same thing I'm doing.  You're making a "projection" into the future based on recent history.

not really iskdude, though i see why you think we are doing the same thing because we are both referencing certain historical items. however, you leave it as "it was thus in the past", therefore "it must be so in the future", whereas i use the historical event(s) only as an illustration of my point which is backed up by other very tangible evidence.

here's the difference between what you were doing and what i just did.

you claim things like:

1. people follow some tribal instinct (when you really mean "some people" and assume that there really is some tribal instinct - btw, there will likely be more to discuss on this tribal instinct stuff since your usage entails some variation of the genetic fallacy)
2. guns have always existed so they will always exist (even though you acknowledge that we don't really know what's going to happen in the future)

what i did was point out that scattered armed citizens do not have a chance these days against an organized military (providing usa invasion, for instance, only as an example, since the same mechanics apply to an 'intra-invasion').

this is not a "projection" or an "assumption". this is straight-forward number crunching.

for instance, examine what bart wrote earlier in the thread:

"The boys in blue can hit you with microwaves, lfo, they can snipe you, they can SWAT you. Whether you have a gun or not makes pretty much no difference."
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:264968

or

craig plunkett's echoing point:

"Imagine the scene: John, your neighbour, in a stand-off with 100 SWAT robocop lookalikes, shivering in his jammies as he struggles to point the thing at one target without being dazzled by the helicopter spotlight.
The chances of armed resistance occuring against the establishment are virtually nil ..."
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:2925910

there aren't too many variables left to hope for when you are so badly outgunned unless one prays for deus ex machina. :D



The difference is that children don't have the capacity to take care of themselves in this society (making money, having skills) and that us adults do ...


that isn't correct by any means. this is an example of the division version of generalization fallacy (aka faulty deduction) - specifically, applying (presumed) characteristics of a group to individuals whether or not such applications are merited.

many children not only have better skills than many adults, they actually have jobs, run the household and even take care of their parents. my wife works with such individuals in this provincially and federally funded project:
http://youthcaregivers.org/

though the project 'accepts' anyone upto the age of 25, many of these kids are in their teens and some haven't quite made it there.

additionally, many kids don't even have parents/guardians, so to argue that their parents are responsible for taking care of them, is a moot point.

finally, many kids don't have parents who are safe to be with (we used to bring such kids to stay with us until social work and police forces intervened).

hence, the notion that kids' parents will take care of them just doesn't work all the time these days ... or even in those good ol' days!

in fact, did you know that the eventual founder of the aspca had to use an animal protection initiative to defend a child, because in 1874 there were insufficient laws protecting children (ie due to similar reasoning you've applied regarding children above):

"Henry Bergh was the founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and was instrumental in the founding of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. He was the first to successfully challenge the prevailing view that both animals and children were property with no rights of their own."
http://friendsofanimals.webs.com/


people should have the choice to their own personal safety by having the choice to have a gun for self-defense and concealed carry.


i hope it is evident that children are people too whether they be classified as adults or not. nothing magical happens at the age of 18. that's just an arbitrary number that's used for certain conveniences (and it isn't even the same number in different places or times).

if you accept self-defense as an inherent right, then you cannot deny it to children. hence, by saying children shouldn't have guns (when everyone else does for self-defense), you deprive a very vulnerable segment of society, a fair chance.


surely events like the newton massacre should make it clear that children need the ability to protect themselves from a society which allows pretty well anyone to have guns! surely children need to have that "choice to their own personal safety"! children in america have served in the army (in various capacities) as young as 10 yrs old (eg archibald smithson), yet even though they have been deemed "old enough" to defend their country, they are not considered old enough to defend themselves?!!

(of course, they tried to do in women too who were 'allowed' to work during ww2, but then told to get back to the kitchen right after it.)



Does that mean we will live in a perfect world? of course not, does that mean crime will go up or down?  It will probably go down, furthermore even if it goes up at least the criminal has a better chance of getting stopped by someone with a concealed carry.

this is all pure speculation again (and you don't need perfect worlds when your goal is to level the playing field). there are actual stats available on these items. while the stats may not be conclusive, they do provide some guidance. we will be looking at some of these stats later in this thread, since there are very few efforts to reference these stats which tends to permit speculation to appear as fact.



If we could find a way to provide prosperity for everyone then perhaps people wouldn't be so adept to commit crimes. A more sustainable way of living, economy and diet could only help the situation.

this on the other hand, is a sensible logical deduction based on the premise that crime is generally caused by some people not having a sufficiency of certain fundamental things (none of this tribal stuff!). if this premise is true, then your claim legitimately follows.



so this continues to be an interesting discussion we are engaged in iskdude!


here are our two main points of contention though:

1. if all people are allowed to arm themselves, then since children are people, they should be allowed to arm themselves.

2. the second amendment should be upheld even if its practical outcome (eg carrying guns), shows that crime goes up, more people are shot and more members of society at risk.


after we settle our differences with these two items, we'll start examining the stats (and may be even explore the tribal item since it's one of those amusing tidbits that both anthropological evidence and philosophical analysis reveal to be something of a myth).

looking forward to your further inputs in this thread!

in friendship,
prad

Well prad you have some good points here, someof which I thought you'd bring up but we'll keep discussing this i guess...

Yes of course what I meant was some people when I said people follow their tribal instincts.  However presumably and consistently (more or less) some people out of the whole throughout history follow a pattern of behavior that could be described as their primitive "tribal instincts" such as racism, nationalism, pretty much any thing or idea that someone believes belongs to his or her group and putting it in the box of their own collective ego meanwhile automatically demonizing anyone outside their own particular group based on more primitive reasoning.  Some people use these reasons to justify that their own group is more special than other groups and are worthy of some sort of special treatment at the exclusion of others.  This type of behavior follows the idea of social darwinism. 

this is not a "projection" or an "assumption". this is straight-forward number crunching.

Number-Crunching only shows presumed probabilities which is what I was at least trying to do when I said guns will always exist.  The probability that guns will always exist is very high because it's a tool for defense and warfare, both of which presumably will always happen as long as human beings inhabit the planet because it has always happened and is happening today.  Is it in the realm of physical possibility that all guns will be eradicated, yes?  Just as it's in the realm of physical possibility that war won't be around for some extended period of time but doubtfully not forever.  However such presumptions are in the extreme and are highly unlikely.  In order to forgo such measures as the eradication of guns over the deaths of a few people is unreasonable because of the risk of tyranny is a greater threat.  Also the risk of letting America in particular become a tyranny is an interesting phenomenon due to it's unique military and economic strength, so the deaths of Americans is not the only potential hazard, if it were to be honest I wouldn't be as worried about it even though I am an American. 

Your presumed failure of the citizens of America helpless against an intra-invasion isn't a forgone conclusion.  There are no absolute certainties, therefore the action of the eradication of guns based on such a presumed certainty doesn't work.  There are many variables, probably one of the biggest ones is like you said the ability of American citizens to work together, which presumably isn't very likely on a massive scale, but another variable could also be the loyalty of the military themselves, people are driving the tanks, drones and battleships and each one's individual loyalty matters.  These are just a couple examples, there are probably more variables out there that my limited mind cannot fathom therefore I have hope.  But you're correct in that the second amendment isn't the answer per se, but it's part of the answer and furthermore it shouldn't be outlawed. 

"Imagine the scene: John, your neighbour, in a stand-off with 100 SWAT robocop lookalikes, shivering in his jammies as he struggles to point the thing at one target without being dazzled by the helicopter spotlight.
The chances of armed resistance occuring against the establishment are virtually nil ..."
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:2925910

there aren't too many variables left to hope for when you are so badly outgunned unless one prays for deus ex machina. :D

Yes, getting swat teamed does mean you are basically screwed lol.  However I'm not talking about getting swat teamed, I'm talking about a civil war so to speak.  If it's against the police, the police are vastly outnumbered and are guaranteed to lose.  When someone gets swat teamed, the cops are in full armament and catch you off guard and may catch you unarmed sometimes at 3 in the morning, the time probably depends on how dangerous they perceive you to be or how much they want to scare you...  Furthermore when you are swat teamed, sometimes you tend to be ridiculously outnumbered in many cases.  The whole point of getting swat teamed is to get you with overwhelming force in a surprise attack!! But in the case of a coup d'etat where specific prominent people are targeted this could work well. 

If people are too afraid to use the 2nd amendment then that pretty much makes the 2nd amendment null anyways.  I suppose a good example of this is what happened during Hurricane Katrina where the police chief and the military disarmed American citizens in the more prominent neighborhoods.  But then again we weren't in a civil war and so the cost-benefit of giving up your guns compared to being shot over them wasn't worth it at the time I suppose. 

I do agree that federal power is getting too large and that includes the military.  More and more as technology progresses the military would get harder and harder to fight off.   So yes a much larger militia type military probably couldn't hurt in the defense of liberty.  All of this centralization and concentration of power is what people should have been watching after over the past decades. 

that isn't correct by any means. this is an example of the division version of generalization fallacy (aka faulty deduction) - specifically, applying (presumed) characteristics of a group to individuals whether or not such applications are merited.

many children not only have better skills than many adults, they actually have jobs, run the household and even take care of their parents. my wife works with such individuals in this provincially and federally funded project:
http://youthcaregivers.org/

Well that's good to hear that your wife is involved with charity organizations, but yes of course I realize that many kids are smarter and more responsible than many adults.  I realize that nothing magical happens at age 18, but for all legal intents and purposes it works out somewhat since people enter adolescents in different ages and stages but are thought to be full-grown more or less by 18 years of age; the period of time between 13-17 is kind of a grey area of when a child transitions into adulthood but still, they are incapable of working full time by law and thus are legally more inhibited for better or worse to take care of themselves.  Whether the laws actually make sense in this regard is not what I'm necessarily trying to get at.  Is it possible to still work and take care of the family before then yes of course, but there are exceptions to almost everything...  Are there bad, negligent, and evil parents out there, yes of course there are.  We don't live in a perfect world and have to realize we can't prevent and control every thing, the best we can do is, well try our best and weigh the cost-benefit risk scenario in our minds of the way society should be run.  This is why people perceive (myself included) that many kids shouldn't have guns since the parents are supposed to be the ones to take care of them, also as their brains aren't fully developed, and they still tend to be immature.  People perceive (myself included) that children could make an emotional or careless mistake resulting in someone's tragic injury while handling weapons.  Since the whole point of creating laws and such is to make a safe and productive society for all, our society deemed it best that children not have the ability to purchase weapons and carry them in the public which isn't unreasonable as far as gun laws go.  Of course parents can do whatever they want in their own home.  Getting to age 18 is just some number that people picked that showcases you are fully grown and should be able to function as a mature adult, it doesn't necessarily mean that adults are mature but we have to draw a line somewhere for legal purposes.

What are we to do with incapable parents with children?  Well we could not tax them for one, but everyone chose that we live in a form of economic slavery by having property taxes and income taxes, and so to prevent the IRS gangsters from taking away the house and spitting a family out onto the streets where the government owns everything is simply a result of everyone choosing to pay taxes, well too much in taxes and letting the IRS and feds have so much power and own all the land...

a substantial post above with some good arguments, iskdude!

there are 3 items covered by you here:

1. your citizen's revolt (aided by the 2nd amendment)
2. the access to guns for children
3. the tribal bit

i want to deal with item #3 here because it's one of those unfortunate attributions that plague sensible discussions and real world behavior. i'll deal with the other two matters in separate posts later.


Yes of course what I meant was some people when I said people follow their tribal instincts ...

this is a very important realization because as mentioned you run afoul of the faulty induction fallacy (attributing the properties of a subset to the set). a delightful illustration of this in action is provided by saxe's poem the blind men and the elephant:

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!


unfortunately, the situation is a bit more serious than the above moral would indicate because faulty induction is one of the foundations for bigotry and subsequent oppression (as shown in one of my recent posts to you).


now i did mention the genetic fallacy as well in my comment about this tribal stuff. what that involves is the erroneous notion that somehow our origins determine the 'correctness' of our actions. you actually see this silliness appearing on both sides of the diet debates:

1. early humans ate corpse parts so we should eat corpse parts
or
2. our ancestors were fruitarians, therefore we must eat accordingly

neither argument has any validity at all not to mention that the premises aren't correct by virtue of faulty induction and the conclusions are non sequiturs as well. you should eat fruits not because fred flinstone did, but because they are good for your health!


now your argument runs something like

humans have had this primitive tribal instinct in the early times and therefore they have it now

so it has the same form (it was so in the past, therefore it must be so now), but it is actually more dangerous because you are attributing to this tribal instinct such things as

racism, nationalism, pretty much any thing or idea that someone believes belongs to his or her group and putting it in the box of their own collective ego meanwhile automatically demonizing anyone outside their own particular group based on more primitive reasoning

while some of this may have been true in the distance past for some members of the human race, there has been a lot of progress made since those days. you can see this movement away from barbarism throughout history. racism etc still exist within some individuals, but the forces against such bigotries are far stronger now than in the distant past (for various reasons). so those "primitive tribal instincts" have very powerful and legal opposition with severe consequences in many places.


that takes care of the logical validity and the developmental part, but what about the actual accuracy of your claim?

craig counters your statement here:

Actually it's very easy to notice that the essential nature of mankind is a tendency toward mutual aid and peacefulness ... You have to read "Mutual Aid" by Peter Kropotkin.
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:3055868

and here

you are falsely using "primitive tribal instincts" synonymously with "a worship of selfishness and capricious war-waging".

Primitive humanity could only possibly have survived without a vigorous passion for cooperation. How else could enough food be gathered? How else do you survive northern european winters without close social bonds? If humanity was truly as you describe, we couldn't and wouldn't be here.
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:3055688


supporting craig's point, anthropological research by robert sussman nearly a decade ago showed such "narrow and simplistic" views of

evolutionary theory that fails to explain many aspects of sociality among mammals in general and primates in particular

The ‘selfish gene’ hypothesis is inadequate

instead of being genetically predisposed to competition and aggression, humans - and perhaps other animals as well (btw bekoff demonstrates this aspect with his extensive research) - have a biological foundation for unselfish social interaction

It feels good to be nice
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/902.aspx


so there is no such thing as primitive tribal instinct (as suggested by you) anymore than there is such a thing as "human nature". philosopher barrows dunham in his book man against myth demonstrates how certain people try to attribute the greed and selfishness of some people to the entire race calling it "human nature" (that's the attempt to make it universal and thereby unavoidable), and then go around using this 'credo' to justify all manner of atrocities ("it's in our nature" rationalization - again faulty induction).


here's what can legitimately be said though:

1. humans (this is pretty well the entire species) seem to have a considerable predilection for being social and being so likely provides pragmatic and evolutionary advantage.

2. there is a certain very small percentage of humans who tend towards leadership positions (eg consider the clowncils of any municipality, institution or organization). some of these individuals do so to further society while others do so to further themselves (and often become oppressors).


so your tribal instinct has more to do with socialization, cooperation and community (as craig wrote) than domination and exclusiveness. most members of society just wanna get along and usually have to be taught to do otherwise by leaders who just wanna get ahead.


(i'll post on the other two items over the next couple of days)


in friendship,
prad

unfortunately, the situation is a bit more serious than the above moral would indicate because faulty induction is one of the foundations for bigotry and subsequent oppression (as shown in one of my recent posts to you).

Yes, I understand what you mean.  I'll try to be more specific and clear in my further arguments.  

you are falsely using "primitive tribal instincts" synonymously with "a worship of selfishness and capricious war-waging".

Yes this is true in the way I said it, but it could also vary depending on the person.  Some people are involved in tribalism because they sincerely view other "tribes" as dangerous or a threat, probably based on their own subjective life-experiences. 

so there is no such thing as primitive tribal instinct (as suggested by you) anymore than there is such a thing as "human nature".

here's what can legitimately be said though:

1. humans (this is pretty well the entire species) seem to have a considerable predilection for being social and being so likely provides pragmatic and evolutionary advantage.

2. there is a certain very small percentage of humans who tend towards leadership positions (eg consider the clowncils of any municipality, institution or organization). some of these individuals do so to further society while others do so to further themselves (and often become oppressors).

so your tribal instinct has more to do with socialization, cooperation and community (as craig wrote) than domination and exclusiveness. most members of society just wanna get along and usually have to be taught to do otherwise by leaders who just wanna get ahead.

Well you said you agree that human beings tend to be social beings.  Whether this type of behavior is embedded somehow in our DNA or just a result of the use of our advanced intellect to give us an advantage could be debated further I guess...  Let's replace the word of "tribalism" with "socialism" (not the political ideology); we can agree this is pretty much mandatory for humans.  After all, a man and a woman is needed to procreate and a baby needs it's mother for survival.  So yes just for basic survival we need others, and the chances of survival are much better if the family works together and furthermore if there's a community of people working together.  There is an inherent need for human beings to talk and socialize with others, this is pretty much agreed upon and is in the Maslo's hierarchy of needs.

I think what we are debating is the nature of this "social instinct."  The way I described it is "primitive tribal instinct."  Primitive not necessarily meaning it's literal term, but more on barbarism and the simplistic, rudimentary reasoning driving the "tribal instincts."  The instinctual part meaning that it's embedded in the core of our being somehow and we both agree that it is, somehow... 

That said, whether this social instinct is used to cooperate or to dominate others is actually based on that particular individual or group of individuals if they have alike minds.  Their reasoning behind doing so may vary,  but as for their actual behavior, it could actually go either way.   

 

Yes, I understand what you mean.  I'll try to be more specific and clear in my further arguments.

appreciated, iskdude!


Yes this is true in the way I said it, but it could also vary depending on the person.  Some people are involved in tribalism because they sincerely view other "tribes" as dangerous or a threat, probably based on their own subjective life-experiences.

agreed! some people do exhibit this "primitive" behavior. however, it is certainly not a human characteristic so much as a characteristic of some humans.


whether this social instinct is used to cooperate or to dominate others is actually based on that particular individual or group of individuals

agreed!


in friendship,
prad

iskdude,

here is my response to your

citizen's revolt



Number-Crunching only shows presumed probabilities which is what I was at least trying to do when I said guns will always exist.

we're really not talking about the same sort of number-crunching here. while you are correct in that if we were to work on probabilities, nothing would be certain (that's why it's called probability), you have no need to do so here. the scenarios bart and craig depicted really do make things a foregone conclusion (the mechanism is to start with initial conditions and then proceed with an algorithm).

here is a comparison of the two concepts as illustrated through physics. consider newton's first law: a body in uniform motion will remain so (unless acted upon by an external force). take out the part in parentheses and you have your "it was so, therefore it will always be so" - which is also a statement of probability (admittedly rather lopsided). however, the laws of the universe (indeed its morality) is such that there is an external force (ie friction) and hence, you can calculate what will happen to the motion of the body to desired degrees of precision without resorting to probabilistic musings.

however, let's look at your variables because you do create some very plausible defenses which merit examination.


first though, look at these contradictions you create:

defense and warfare, both of which presumably will always happen as long as human beings inhabit the planet because it has always happened and is happening today

on one hand you argue that "there are no absolute certainties", but just above you argue for one via "presumably will always happen" because it always has happened. then in the next sentence, you state that "it's in the realm of physical possibility that all guns will be eradicated" right after which you say that such presumption are "in the extreme and are highly unlikely". you seem to be engaged in "having your gun and eating it" arguing both sides at the same time. :D

so anyway, as long as you acknowledge that there is the possibility that "all guns will be eradicated" (which is actually pretty good considering some countries have done that as far as citizen ownership goes), then you cannot with correctness make statements like "guns will always exist" especially using the excuse that it will be so "because they have always existed" (a non sequitur as pointed out in my earlier post to you).

to do otherwise is logically irrational because you are just arguing against your own point. or perhaps you are just keeping an open mind and looking at various possibilities.



here are your excellent variables on the citizen's revolt:

a) the possibility that usa citizens may actually get their act together and work in a unified fashion in an attempt to overthrow the tyrannical gov
b) the loyalty of the military switching to join the citizens
c) the fact that citizens greatly outnumber the police/military forces


item a) is definitely legitimate even though it presently seems pretty far-fetched.

first you need to overcome the complacency of the vast majority of usa citizens. we both acknowledged this complacency in earlier posts.

second, the usa has traditionally been divided 50-50 (more or less) except in rare situations when it comes to voting. on some occasions, you do get landslides, so it is reasonable to assume that this fight for liberty (which really isn't the word i would use even though it sounds so good) could act as a catalyst for unity just as it seemed to do a couple of hundred years ago.

however, one really wonders if gun ownership is a sufficient issue ... especially when you look at how majority sees obama's gun control plan favorably (that was about a week ago, so i don't know if things have changed).

third, we have the real question of whether if the citizens somehow did unify, would they be a viable force against the military? would they have the coordination? would they have the skills? would they have the leadership? would they actually be willing to lay down their lives for this cause when they could be watching pop videos on youtube?

so, while i can accept your single variable, it seems to introduce several new undermining variables that may be worth thinking about.

additionally, you also have a pretty serious logistic issue to deal with that people don't really examine: you just don't have enough guns in the hands of enough people in a spacially large country!

so here's what the stats show:

in 1973, about 50% had guns in their homes.
these days the number has shrunk to 45%.
apparently only 35% of the population actually own the guns.
on average a man owns 8 guns!
myth #9

here are some more stats reinforcing the above:
The Declining Culture of Guns and Violence in the United States

(you may find the correlation between less gun ownership and less violence interesting though that has no relevance to this particular issue)

so in summary, here are your problems:

1. there are a lot of serious incompetencies with your citizen's army
2. there aren't enough guns in enough hands

i leave it up to you do decide whether you really want to risk joining this army. ;)



item b) is an interesting possibility and really would be necessary if there is to be any hope of success. military coups are a tricky matter though as can be seen in various countries. you usually need to have someone the army will back (usually because their officers tell them to do so). soldiers are after all paid workers; initiative and independent actions are not desirable qualities for obvious reasons.

another thing to worry about from your perspective as a "progressive libertarian" is what happens after the military supports the citizen's revolt successfully. do they take over? do we get a military state? are you willing to run that risk just so you can have your gun?

look at what happens usually in the latin and south american countries which have military coups on a fairly regular basis - is the usa going to be different? and if you have a second citizen's revolt, which military will come to the rescue this time?

i don't know, but again, this variable generates a multitude of others. so, i leave the merits of the idea with you again.



item c) citizens do outnumber the combination of the feds and military. in fact, they actually 'outgun' them nearly 80:1! however, we're talking quantity not quality. the feds have access to weaponry that makes using piddly guns rather pointless (again elaborated on by bart and craig).

now, in an earlier time, you would have had a much better chance as evidenced by past revolts. for instance, the french revolutionaries succeeded by shear numbers and brute force. the same may eventually have happened in india as gandhi put it "100000 british cannot control 250 million indians" (except it was done not through warfare thanks to his influence).

however, we're not playing the same game anymore. your citizens have shotguns, rifles, handguns and presumably access to a lot of ammo.

i leave it to your imagination what the armed forces can do with what it has. may be, as bart (and others) suggested, you'd be better off with a more gandhian approach.



let me add a couple of variables you haven't mentioned:

d) foreign support for the citizens!

certainly this sort of thing has happened. in fact, that's what the usa regularly engages in - providing arms to warring factions (at a nice price). so how about the mexicans pitching in some tacos and we canajians can send you our entire conservative party - in fact, you're welcome to have the liberals and the ndp as well!

of course, there are those pesky russians, but sarah palin is watching them from alaska, so you should be ok. wait! may be she isn't watching anymore.

what a fine opportunity your civil war would be for a foreign power to capitalize on! why they sell serious arms to the citizens army and then after all the smoke clears, they could move right in (so to speak).

is it worth risking foreign invasion just so you can keep your guns?


e) the american conscience will prevent the army from killing their fellow americans.

well, it's a nice variable. however, whereas the army acts with conscience, you have a group of pro-gun advocates who are willing to kill american citizens just so they can have their guns! it makes one wonder who the real tyrants are: the gov which is trying to reduce gun violence or NRA et al who  seem ready to go to any lengths to protect what they call their 'freedom'!


anyway, it should be evident that we can play with variables endlessly and claim that we don't really know what is going to happen. however, some things are already certain (eg divisive and disorganized citizens, the most powerful army in the world). in engineering we would call these the initial conditions. from the initial conditions one can compute scenarios using various analytical methodologies. there really isn't going to be much room for 'probability'.

quantum mechanics may explain much of existent through probability distributions, but we still function in a newtonian deterministic world (qm probabilities themselves become overwhelming) - and it may be wise to remember that when preparing any initiative.

here's another way to understand why your "it's all probability, therefore we don't know what will happen" idea really doesn't work here. this is beyond the "variables generating variables" problem i've illustrated as well as the "initial conditions and analytical engine" mechanism which is more appropriate than this notion of calculating probabilities by "tossing coins" (though that is done to some extent in specific areas such as casualty computations simply because you can't lay your hands on many factors of such detail).

consider kasperov vs the world from 1999. you have a remarkable grand master (the best in history) playing the white pieces going up against 50000 individuals working in consultation. kasperov won after 62 moves. prior to this in 1996, you had karpov vs the world and he had won convincingly even with the black pieces. the reason for these victories were pretty clear - the world team is scattered in both ability and concepts. even though in the kasperov game an effort was made to help the world team through consultation by a team of experts, the outcome remained the same largely because world team moves were done by voting and the level of competence (despite there being so many fine minds) just couldn't match kasperov though it was a good fight and there were points in it when he acknowledged that he was quite stretched ... after all, he was playing against a host of gms as well as amateurs using the latest chess programs (of that era) as well as irina krush's analysis tree which helped to coordinate the voting to some extent. despite these interesting efforts, there was disparity within the ranks (as well as grumblings - everybody's gotta be the boss! :D).

you have the same problem with your citizen's revolt. too much power on one side (you don't even have the benefit of equal armament that chess provides) and on the other, too many cooks, too many ideas, too much debate - or as seven of nine told captain janeway (second episode of star trek voyager scorpion): "it will be your undoing". that is the price so-called 'freedom' extracts - and it devastates its practioners as well as innocent bystanders.

so the conclusion is pretty well predetermined by the initial conditions, the levels of competence on each side and the rules of the game. again, unless you get a deus ex machina, about the only thing you have left is what aragorn told haleth son of hama in the two towers just before saruman's forces struck: "there is always hope". indeed he is correct (due to the nature of the term), but remember it still took a deus ex machina via the timely arrival of gandalf and eomer to cause that hope to be materialized.

war at these levels isn't a hockey game - there is no opportunity for a "miracle on ice" (1980). war just doesn't seem to be the game it was in the good ol' days of the second amendment's inception.



anyway, i think you are spot on right here:

If people are too afraid to use the 2nd amendment then that pretty much makes the 2nd amendment null anyways ... the cost-benefit of giving up your guns compared to being shot over them wasn't worth it
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:3056793

one of the difficulties of getting a mass of people to act is this cost benefit issue - if it ain't worth it, most won't do it!

that's what i'm getting at too. admittedly, i'm arguing from a consequentialism (utilitarian) perspective while your "defend the 2nd amendment" is deontological (duty). both are valid theoretical approaches ... and both are often at each others' throats. :D

in this situation, i doubt if too many people will get out their guns to take on the us army because the calculations don't look too promising and the second amendment is easy to defend, but only with words.

(last item on kids coming up hopefully tomorrow).


in friendship,
prad

This is a long one, very comprehensive so here goes...

The amount of guns in this country is pretty hard to determine, I've heard of varying estimates.  Home-manufactured guns aren't counted and the only part of the gun that is considered legally a gun is actually the receiver of the gun or the main body.  The barrel, trigger, hammer, rivets, screws, butt-stock, pistol grip, gas-chamber, recoil spring, etc can all be bought without any regulation whatsoever.  At least in every state outside of California, I believe...  So you could make your own receiver at home or buy a pre-fabricated (regulated) or semi pre-fab (un-regulated) receiver and finish it at home.  The private sale of firearms is totally legal and un-regulated (no red tape) as long as the owner doesn't know that the buyer is a felon, at least in most states.  Probably all outside California...

Also don't forget the illegal guns from varying sources.  As you may or may not know,  criminals tend to get guns even if they're outlawed (thus defining the very definition of a criminal).  Corrupt people in the military will sometimes even steal arms from military-armories and have military-grade arms for sale in the black market often because some people in the military themselves are gangsters.  The types of arms include fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, pretty much anything the military has you can get if you know the right people and have the mula for such items, they can reach quite a price in the black market. 

you usually need to have someone the army will back (usually because their officers tell them to do so). soldiers are after all paid workers; initiative and independent actions are not desirable qualities for obvious reasons.

Yes I can agree with this, and ultimately this is the the trick.  The mindset of the military has to overcome their own self-preservation which may be highly unlikely. 

another thing to worry about from your perspective as a "progressive libertarian" is what happens after the military supports the citizen's revolt successfully. do they take over? do we get a military state? are you willing to run that risk just so you can have your gun?

Ideally, we'd restore the constitution, investigate the perpetrators of the civil war and bring them to justice.  The taking of guns would be perceived to lead to the eventual establishment of a military police state so ideally yes we would run that risk. 

I'm not defending the second amendment for the sake of owning guns.  It's the ability of owning arms in order to have liberty.  Governments are just people, who have been chosen to have power by society.  Many times society chooses bad  people due to getting duped, or maybe most of society is morally bankrupt and chose leaders that are also morally bankrupt.

The ability of man to trust their government is nothing more than that, trust on powerful people.  If you take away arms, all you have is that trust in the system.  Even if the system is well-fabricated, like the constitution.  You can still have corrupt police, judges, senators etc...  Just because there are countries today in which the people are still free and have no guns doesn't mean that will always be the case since the people are in reality helpless if a threat looms around the corner...

The ability of people to have arms makes the ability for a government to take over significantly more harder.  If what you say is true that the military-strength is so incredibly strong (and it may be) that having arms is a moot point then perhaps the second amendment needs to be updated to today's standards with Rocket launchers ;).  Because yes, I could see taking down a tank being pretty hard to do with just guns.  Although there are the very large caliber guns like the .50 BMG, .6 and .7 Nitro express used in a so-called elephant gun.  The .50 BMG is commonly available w/o red tape and has the ability to pierce light-armor vehicles and can take down radar and vulnerable equipment on some vehicles but couldn't penetrate the armor of a tank.  I'm not sure of anything bigger but they tend to be very well regulated and thus much more rare and expensive anyways. 

So yes, perhaps Americans aren't as well-armed as they should be.  But still having arms protects you on an individual level.  The military has the ability to destroy us through bombings or nukes (more practical), but is that what "they" really want, to destroy us? 

The point of a tyranny is to dominate and exploit, if they destroy everything there's nothing to dominate or exploit lol. 

The ability to fight back at least prevents this from happening.  Or to put it simply "I'd rather die fighting on my feet rather than die on my knees" or something like that.  Of course this could be "all talk" as you put it, the right to potentially do so relies on the individual. 

I'll tell you this, with 9/11 being an inside job (another thread topic) and the recent shootings being staged events (also another topic); and the fact that the government, Which would include Obama and some people in congress want our guns for said events.  I'm not giving up my guns and I'm not going to a Fema Camp either so I can get tortured or starved or a combination of both by some sadists who've taken over the government.  I guess what I'm saying is, we don't have a choice, practical or not.  Whether our chances are detrimentally slim or not.  Failure is not an option and we have nothing to lose and the threat is a very real one today.

I'd like to talk more on this but a little later...

This is a long one

not a problem iskdude - i've put you through some long ones too so fair is fair. ;)


The amount of guns in this country is pretty hard to determine ...

that may be and the sources for guns you provide are certainly valid. however, your argument tends to strengthen the 'rag-tag' nature of gun owners. they are a very diverse group which includes "criminals", "corrupt people", "gangsters" etc. i do wonder if they will join your army ... and even worse whether you actually want them. since these people likely have a mercenary mindset bent on short-term gains, they may even fight against you for the government who can buy them out ... with your own taxes no less!



I'm not defending the second amendment for the sake of owning guns.  It's the ability of owning arms in order to have liberty.

ok that's a nice sounding phrase, but exactly what does it mean? liberty to do what? liberty from whom? what exactly is this liberty?

somehow i don't think your criminals, corrupt people and gangsters are going to share your noble sentiments for liberty ... especially since it is unclear what the answers to the above questions are. the rest of you who seem to insist you have a righteous cause (and i'm not arguing that you don't at this stage) need to make clear what you are really talking about when you use that word "liberty".


Many times society chooses bad  people due to getting duped, or maybe most of society is morally bankrupt and chose leaders that are also morally bankrupt.

very true! i think the two ideas go hand in hand. if you weren't morally bankrupt and had worthwhile principles, it is unlikely you'd get duped. i do wonder though as to just who is duping whom.



The ability of man to trust their government is nothing more than that, trust on powerful people.  If you take away arms, all you have is that trust in the system.

even if you don't take away arms, all you still have is that trust in the system. isn't this exactly why people choose enslavement (to use your own word)? since all your armed people have opted for enslavement anyway (ie jobs, taxes, adherence to existing laws etc), i don't see what difference it makes whether you have 0 guns or 8 guns in the house. you aren't going to use them on your enslavers because that would be breaking the law and there will be consequences for doing so.

on the other hand, you did have people like thoreau and martin luther king who practiced their choices (and even broke the existing law) without guns because they not only didn't trust the system, they vigorously opposed it. they didn't make allusions to liberty, they took action. so it seems this fight for liberty (in their case, rather well-defined) has been accomplished without guns.

can you provide any examples in american history (other than independence), where guns brought freedom from enslavement against a tyrannical regime? i'd like to compile a list.


You can still have corrupt police, judges, senators etc...

of course! and these are abundant. for instance, look at the corruption in berks county regarding the pigeon shoots:
http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/pigeon-shoot-in-pa
(that thread is filled with posts on this matter)

however, who is using guns to deal with these corrupt individuals who abuse their power?



The ability of people to have arms makes the ability for a government to take over significantly more harder.

this hasn't been established and i've challenged it. so perhaps you can provide an argument or documentation demonstrating this is actually so.

again, having guns doesn't do anyone much good unless you are actually willing to use them (the 'threat' wears off quickly). furthermore, since your chances are more than 4 times greater of being shot because you have a gun (as shown in a prior post) with just your ordinary public, it would seem it would be much greater when facing an organized attack force. after all, whom do you think the feds would shoot first in light of their own safety: unarmed protestors or armed ones?



If what you say is true that the military-strength is so incredibly strong (and it may be) that having arms is a moot point then perhaps the second amendment needs to be updated to today's standards with Rocket launchers ;) ...

ya i'd already recommended concealed m20s and you make some great suggestions there too! however, it seems to me that cost might become prohibitive for many. again, you aren't going to get these weapons into the hands of most people as is the case now with most gun owners having 8 guns while the rest of the population don't have a whole lot.



The point of a tyranny is to dominate and exploit, if they destroy everything there's nothing to dominate or exploit lol.

well may be not. consider hiroshima and nagasaki. you don't need to destroy everything - just do a good job destroying a few things and fear (or may be it's intelligence) will look after the rest.

if your citizen's army were to form, all that needs to be done is nuke key locations. you'll get citizens who were never interested in taking up arms (and preferred enslavement as you say) getting pretty mad at the uprising now providing additional enemies for your army.

one of the reasons usa dropped atomic bombs on those jap cities was to make it clear just what could be done. as a result, the japs surrendered unconditionally. i rather doubt your citizen's army would carry on the fight after some serious damage had been done - which is one reason why i doubt your citizen's army would even form ... because most potential candidates already know what their chances are.


The ability to fight back at least prevents this from happening.  Or to put it simply "I'd rather die fighting on my feet rather than die on my knees" or something like that.  Of course this could be "all talk" as you put it

well it is all talk until you can provide some examples in american history where it wasn't all talk. the phrase you are probably looking for is "give me liberty or give me death" (attributed to patrick henry) and these words supposedly got virginia into action ... but those were the good ol' days and the fight certainly wasn't about having guns, but about money (no taxation without representation).



with 9/11 being an inside job (another thread topic)

you were already on that thread by the humane hominid (robert). i've watched it for more than two years now. though there have been a few good posts from the conspiracy side, no one has come close to providing actual evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. no one has even come close to meeting robert's challenge. in fact, the efforts later on by the pro-insiders were getting so absurd and even rude, it was an embarrassment to keep a neutral outlook. that's why i left it and even suggested it be closed, because robert made his point ... or shall i say his opponents made it for him.

even you, who have made several worthwhile posts here, contributed this sort of thing on that thread:
"don't bother arguing it's pointless..."
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:2944022



and the recent shootings being staged events (also another topic)

yes we know about james tracy and his blog analyses which is based not on produceable facts, but on speculation that "things don't add up". very often when you don't actually have verifiable facts, you use the "things don't add up" line. that can be a good starting point, but some people as in robert's thread, seem to think incorrect summations somehow constitute valid argumentation.



what puzzles me about your above comments is that you were the one who utilized this idea in an earlier post:
"everyone is innocent until proven guilty"
 http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:3053259

yet without evidence much less a fair trial (on the basis of some verifiable evidence) and based only on speculation, you accuse the gw bush gov and the obama gov of mass murder. this doesn't seem fair and you have certainly argued throughout this thread in a fair and certainly decent fashion (albeit having a tendency towards falling into fallacies). so i'm actually surprised by this stance of yours in the middle of quicksand.



I'm not giving up my guns and I'm not going to a Fema Camp either so I can get tortured or starved or a combination of both by some sadists who've taken over the government.

now we're into fallacy again. this one is the slippery slope (aka camel's nose): if i give up my guns, i'll end up in a torture camp!

actually, the two things you say you are not planning on doing may be sequentially closer related than is evident at first glance. by not giving up your guns, you may worry the feds sufficiently so they do send you to fema camp.


however, some of this fema stuff is just incompetent:
"Senate committee hearings and official FBI documents further illustrate the mindset of our elected officials as they classify homeschoolers, gun rights activists and anti-abortionists as threats against the existing social and political order"
http://www.campfema.com/

you should note that for some reason, the creators of this website didn't included us vegans and animal rights activists as being threats when i certainly would hope that we are!

publications like these on the site certainly sell to some faction of the population, but one just has to wonder about their legitimacy especially when there are time-limited discount offers! besides, since when do serious activists sell important and legitimate material. consider one of my groups www.fsf.org - we give the stuff away because we want people to know what's happening. they can donate to help or even by things from the shop if they want to, but the good stuff is always free!



Failure is not an option and we have nothing to lose and the threat is a very real one today.

again fine words though i'm not sure "you have nothing to lose". it seems to me that you have plenty to lose and that doesn't even include your life.

i'd like to know what your plans are ... just in case they do come for your guns. are you planning to barricade your doors and take aim through the windows? how many feds do you figure on taking out before they get you?


I'd like to talk more on this but a little later...

good! i'll be waiting!


in friendship,
prad

i do wonder if they will join your army ... and even worse whether you actually want them. since these people likely have a mercenary mindset bent on short-term gains, they may even fight against you for the government who can buy them out ... with your own taxes no less!

Maybe some of them will realize just like Dr. doom in the Rise of the Silver Surfer movie, that they will have to team up on the good side of liberty for a little while so they will be free enough to continue their criminal activity lol!

ok that's a nice sounding phrase, but exactly what does it mean? liberty to do what? liberty from whom? what exactly is this liberty?

Well ideally, restoring the constitution (although it probably could be improved upon but that's not a subject I'm qualified for speaking about).  One could say that we are already living under a tyranny and it needs restoring now, since our second amendment is restricted and regulated from it's original purpose and also that Congress isn't the one that coins money anymore...  

even if you don't take away arms, all you still have is that trust in the system. isn't this exactly why people choose enslavement (to use your own word)? since all your armed people have opted for enslavement anyway (ie jobs, taxes, adherence to existing laws etc), i don't see what difference it makes whether you have 0 guns or 8 guns in the house. you aren't going to use them on your enslavers because that would be breaking the law and there will be consequences for doing so.

Not really, having guns gives people the option to fight back physically.  If they don't then that's their/our problem.  The purpose was to block off one pathway to tyranny and that is the physical, militaristic takeover and also to give power to the people so they can back-up their demands.  Unfortunately it seems most people are drawing their line in the sand at the second amendment for the sake of the second amendment.  I don't believe many of them know or care that we are already in a semi-tyranny. 

can you provide any examples in american history (other than independence), where guns brought freedom from enslavement against a tyrannical regime? i'd like to compile a list.

No I can't provide any examples utilizing guns outside the revolution if there were any at the moment...

on the other hand, you did have people like thoreau and martin luther king who practiced their choices (and even broke the existing law) without guns because they not only didn't trust the system, they vigorously opposed it. they didn't make allusions to liberty, they took action. so it seems this fight for liberty (in their case, rather well-defined) has been accomplished without guns.

But it's also possible that such methods may not work...  After all here we are all these years later, we have the major religious figures to add onto that.  Although such measures should be taken up first of course since it's much more efficient and effective that way.

The ability of people to have arms makes the ability for a government to take over significantly more harder.

this hasn't been established and i've challenged it. so perhaps you can provide an argument or documentation demonstrating this is actually so.

again, having guns doesn't do anyone much good unless you are actually willing to use them (the 'threat' wears off quickly). furthermore, since your chances are more than 4 times greater of being shot because you have a gun (as shown in a prior post) with just your ordinary public, it would seem it would be much greater when facing an organized attack force. after all, whom do you think the feds would shoot first in light of their own safety: unarmed protestors or armed ones?

If the feds shot armed protestors at least the protestors could shoot back and it could start a righteous civil war or an uprising...    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

it seems to me that cost might become prohibitive for many. again, you aren't going to get these weapons into the hands of most people as is the case now with most gun owners having 8 guns while the rest of the population don't have a whole lot.

If the average gun owner or 1/8 of the population had a rocket launcher (1/8 of roughly 300 million being 37.5 million rocket launchers roughly) then the military wouldn't be a significant threat at all and would be wiped out very quickly.  As an assault on military bases would make them go bye-bye just as you say due to the mere physics of the rocket launcher.  So I'd be fine with those numbers ;)  The high costs is due to the government control and restriction and red tape that comes along with such items, ideally this obstacle would be wiped out...  And actually there is a judge that says rocket launchers are considered arms and are supposed to be legal under the second amendment and I'd have to agree, so it's true we do already live in a tyranny of some degree...  http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/29/602491/scalia-rocket-la...


well may be not. consider hiroshima and nagasaki. you don't need to destroy everything - just do a good job destroying a few things and fear (or may be it's intelligence) will look after the rest.

True, but like I said, if they chose to continue fighting they'd have gotten nuked more and more as long as they kept fighting.  It depended upon on how much of a threat the u.s. was to all of them.  If the u.s.'s stated goal was to put every Japanese in a Concentration camp, I don't think they would have given up after only two...  It depends on the perceived nature of the tyrant.  This goes along with the cost-benefit analysis, accurate or not, people perceive a cost-benefit analysis for a situation and try to come out as unscathed as possible.  Many Jews in Europe didn't leave Germany when they had a chance to because for some reason they didn't perceive a real reason to.  This is much like today in America ironically lol...

The ability to fight back at least prevents this from happening.  Or to put it simply "I'd rather die fighting on my feet rather than die on my knees" or something like that.  Of course this could be "all talk" as you put it

well it is all talk until you can provide some examples in american history where it wasn't all talk. the phrase you are probably looking for is "give me liberty or give me death" (attributed to patrick henry) and these words supposedly got virginia into action ... but those were the good ol' days and the fight certainly wasn't about having guns, but about money (no taxation without representation).

This is the quote, "“I would rather die standing than live on my knees.” – Emiliano Zapata, dunno who it is or why he said that but it illustrates my point... 

It's not all talk, even if i can't provide any examples because it shouldn't require any examples.  This has to do with a personal decision on each individual, some of which people have made in probably a multitude of situations.  For most people it may be just talk, that's their own problem and their own decision.  Obviously we're going to have many people who submit to anything the government says and obviously there's going to be people who won't submit to orders that the government says.  It's really just a numbers game, just because you perceive that the majority will submit isn't a sufficient argument for the taking away of arms and giving up.  If the overwhelming majority of people choose slavery then there's nothing that can be done about it no matter what, that's just the way it is and there's no absolute way of telling for sure until it happens.  But, one can chose to leave that society; if that particular society doesn't want you to leave, guns could definitely be useful in such a situation.  For example in the movie Defiance, a group of Jews banded together and lived in the Forrest, what tool gave them that ability more than any other?  Having guns...  They attacked convoys and took their arms and supplies and were able to last the length of the war and survive; supposedly that was based on a true story, true or not such things are conceivable, probable, and likely to happen during such times and people are already planning out such scenarios as there's a prepping culture now even in the mainstream media with shows such as doomsday preppers on the national geographic channel..

i'd like to know what your plans are ... just in case they do come for your guns. are you planning to barricade your doors and take aim through the windows? how many feds do you figure on taking out before they get you?

Ideally, some planning ahead would be preferable.  I don't see how going to a camp could possibly work out, in such a situation all you would have is the hope of divine intervention.  I don't really see that happening...  I'd move out to the woods actually, if the feds came after you there then you know they're not coming for just the guns haha!!  I guess I'd just have to wait it out and allow civilization to roll over on itself.  Hopefully the whole thing would blow over and civilization would be needed to be restarted.  Which is what I believe will happen; hopefully all the books won't be burnt lol!!  That would be quite a shame, perhaps I ought to download the human library onto a hard drive and save it for later when I need to restart civilization just so the whole thing can happen again at some other point in the future, j/k, or maybe not... 

hello again iskdude!

Maybe some of them will realize just like Dr. doom in the Rise of the Silver Surfer movie, that they will have to team up on the good side of liberty for a little while so they will be free enough to continue their criminal activity lol!

:D that's a good one. unfortunately, i think there is more validity to it than may seem evident. more seriously though, we have an assumption that your side is "the good side of liberty". that hasn't been established by a long shot especially since a rather large majority of society would see it otherwise. that being said, majorities aren't necessarily sensible as shown by the election of gw bush not once but twice (i won't even mention what's been going on in canada).

additionally, the majority of americans eat corpse and we know that's not good.

however, whereas i can demonstrate through induction (cogency) and even deduction that vegan (ie elimination of corpse consumption) is nutritionally, environmentally and ethically good, i'm not sure you can do the same to show that you are really on the good side of liberty. i would like to see if you can show that you really are on the good side of liberty.



Well ideally, restoring the constitution

i'm not sure what constitution you are talking about restoring. the original never had this gun stuff. furthermore, as per earlier post, you already have 27 amendments to it with 6 others in tow. things could change quickly too. so exactly what are you restoring?

btw, just as a matter of interest, have you actually read your constitution and its amendments? you seem to want to use it for some of your arguments, but simultaneously argue against its very principles at times (eg taxation and the right to trial).


Unfortunately it seems most people are drawing their line in the sand at the second amendment for the sake of the second amendment.

yes i think this is a very astute and meaningful statement!



No I can't provide any examples utilizing guns outside the revolution if there were any at the moment...

this is most unfortunate. i think you could have a start of a viable argument if you could.



But it's also possible that such methods may not work...  After all here we are all these years later ...

on the other hand, much has been accomplished by thoreau and mlk. however, you are unable to list even a single instance where your "gun utilization" has accomplished anything at all.



If the feds shot armed protestors at least the protestors could shoot back and it could start a righteous civil war or an uprising...    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

inappropriate example. the students were unarmed and were shot down understandably sparking a strong protest. it's important to understand the principles of civil disobedience (thoreau wrote the book on it, btw) if you are going to spark that righteous civil war.



If the average gun owner or 1/8 of the population had a rocket launcher

but they don't and couldn't afford it much less use these in a meaningful way (ie assaulting military bases), so there is no point in trying to make an argument where one doesn't exist (though i suppose one could make a movie if not an argument).


And actually there is a judge that says rocket launchers are considered arms

again not correct. check the link you supply: scalia says "Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."

you haven't represented scalia's statement accurately - you've only represented your own desires here.



If the u.s.'s stated goal was to put every Japanese in a Concentration camp, I don't think they would have given up after only two...  It depends on the perceived nature of the tyrant.

this 'tyrant' demanded unconditional surrender. the japs quit because they knew they'd be nuked off the planet if they didn't. no need for concentration camps.



This is the quote, "I would rather die standing than live on my knees." – Emiliano Zapata, dunno who it is or why he said that but it illustrates my point...

it only illustrates that some people have made memorable quotes. emiliano was a mexican revolutionary, btw. his 'success', it seems, was actually due to his martyrdom more than his revolutionary activities.



It's not all talk, even if i can't provide any examples because it shouldn't require any examples.

what sort of an argument is that: i can't provide examples because my argument doesn't need examples.

if you make a claim and your claim is challenged, you need to argue the legitimacy of the claim either through rational reasoning or through verifiable examples. you do neither.

the 'defiance' allusion is not an argument for your case either. you don't even know whether it's true admitting that it's "conceivable, probable". again, this is not an argument.



so let me make the argument for you. in situations where you have a vastly inferior force fighting against a superior one, there have known to be some degree of success for the former by either an approach which illicits the sympathy (and eventual intervention) of the outside world or one which resorts to guerilla tactics (or some combo of both). having this 'right' to guns isn't the issue here - it's whether you can get enough people to actually act in a sensible cohesive fashion instead of acting like a bunch of yahoos.



I guess I'd just have to wait it out and allow civilization to roll over on itself.  Hopefully the whole thing would blow over and civilization would be needed to be restarted.

so we come to the crunch finally! iskdude roams the woods on his own hoping that the feds and the pro-gunners will fight it out and destroy civilization! then he can emerge with his hard drive of downloaded books to restart civilization! let me give you a serious tip though - dump windoze and get with linux! we don't want to make the same serious errors again!!


in friendship,
prad

This debate is getting pretty drawn out I think and I think that it's starting to get off tangent.  Let's try to wrap this up...

more seriously though, we have an assumption that your side is "the good side of liberty". that hasn't been established by a long shot especially since a rather large majority of society would see it otherwise. that being said, majorities aren't necessarily sensible as shown by the election of gw bush not once but twice (i won't even mention what's been going on in canada).

I told you 9/11 was an inside job and I don't want to give up my freedoms for a false flag event.  The Larry Silverstein comment broadcast on the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds" where he says pull-it and CNN footage of the cops telling people to get back their going to bring down wtc7 is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it was an inside job.  If that's not what you consider to be beyond a reasonable doubt then I guess that's your own choice and judgement; then it's pointless debating further about it.  It's not something I WANT to believe, in fact I'd be glad if you could prove otherwise I think it'd make my life easier, then maybe I'd feel better about all the torture, murder, wars, takeovers, and stripping of due process and rights!

i'm not sure what constitution you are talking about restoring. the original never had this gun stuff. furthermore, as per earlier post, you already have 27 amendments to it with 6 others in tow. things could change quickly too. so exactly what are you restoring?

btw, just as a matter of interest, have you actually read your constitution and its amendments? you seem to want to use it for some of your arguments, but simultaneously argue against its very principles at times (eg taxation and the right to trial).

You can support something and not necessarily agree with everything in it or what consequences it may have.  That's why we have the right to petition, the freedom of speech the freedom of assembly the right to vote...  Yes I've read the constitution although It's been quite some time since I last read it beginning to end so my memory may be a bit rusty...

but they don't and couldn't afford it much less use these in a meaningful way (ie assaulting military bases), so there is no point in trying to make an argument where one doesn't exist (though i suppose one could make a movie if not an argument).

we're talking about future scenarios and possibilities so there is a point in talking about it. 

you haven't represented scalia's statement accurately - you've only represented your own desires here.

Fair enough!


this 'tyrant' demanded unconditional surrender. the japs quit because they knew they'd be nuked off the planet if they didn't. no need for concentration camps.

Yes but they were the aggressors of that war and thus they brought a just war upon themselves.  The only tyrant in this scenario was the Japs at the time.

so let me make the argument for you. in situations where you have a vastly inferior force fighting against a superior one, there have known to be some degree of success for the former by either an approach which illicits the sympathy (and eventual intervention) of the outside world or one which resorts to guerilla tactics (or some combo of both). having this 'right' to guns isn't the issue here - it's whether you can get enough people to actually act in a sensible cohesive fashion instead of acting like a bunch of yahoos.

The right to guns makes the ability to engage in guerilla tactics or rebellion a more viable option, since in order to carry out such actions the tools of warfare would be needed in the first place.  This civil war hasn't happened yet so hopefully it can be avoided, I do not want this to happen at all however I don't perceive that enough people are "waking up."  Although people are...  I'm actually glad to see many like minded-people on this forum BTW...


so we come to the crunch finally! iskdude roams the woods on his own hoping that the feds and the pro-gunners will fight it out and destroy civilization!

Hopefully I won't be by myself :(  And hopefully the pro-gunners will be the ones who win and civilization won't be destroyed :) 

RSS

About

TheBananaGirl created this Ning Network.

30BaD Search

Latest Activity

© 2019   Created by TheBananaGirl.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service