Triumphrat

Scrambler900

It was a joke, dude. But come to think of it, I'd like to see Costas in need of a gun right as the zombies tear into his carotid artery.

__________________
Stay cool, like Steve McQueen
My photo web site is http://triumph.smugmug.com

Demonic

I agree with you, of course. But my point was that if one claims that a well-armed population is the only defence against tyranny, then you have to accept that there are others whos definitions of tyranny will differ from yours.

McVeigh said "Those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly.
It also stands to reason that anyone who sympathizes with the enemy or gives aid or comfort to said enemy is likewise guilty...
I know in my heart that I am right in my struggle... Blood will flow in the streets, Steve. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend."

He believed he was fighting against a tyrannical government that was walking all over the constitution. Same phrase I have seen people on here and elsewhere use to justify needing a well-armed populace.

Basically, my point is that a well-armed population does NOT just mean arming the rational, moderate, sensible people. It also means arming the nutters like McVeigh. I think that having a well-armed population has just as much chance of resulting in tyranny than it does of preventing it...

__________________
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

HAP

[QUOTE=Demonic;2442190.[/QUOTE]

McVeigh said "Those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly.
It also stands to reason that anyone who sympathizes with the enemy or gives aid or comfort to said enemy is likewise guilty...
I know in my heart that I am right in my struggle... Blood will flow in the streets, Steve. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend."
And instead of attacking some government building housing folks that made laws against his position, he attacked one that did busy work and contained a day care. In war that is crimes against humanity.
He believed he was fighting against a tyrannical government that was walking all over the constitution. Same phrase I have seen people on here and elsewhere use to justify needing a well-armed populace. Again, I say he didn't do what he preached.

Basically, my point is that a well-armed population does NOT just mean arming the rational, moderate, sensible people. It also means arming the nutters like McVeigh. I think that having a well-armed population has just as much chance of resulting in tyranny than it does of preventing it..
There are any number of historical instances in America's past that show the imbalance of a government hell bent on getting it's way to the point of killing it's own citizens. Only the revolution had us all prepared to fight an oppressive government. The civil war allowed us to settle 60 years of hatred and a split population. The first solders on each side were ordinary folk believing in a cause of unjust government.

Our government's track record isn't very good when it comes to protecting the core values of the constitution as the wholesale imprisonment of a couple hundred thousand Japs, machine gunning striking gold miners, helping coal mine owners kill strikers using mercenaries and a couple more gruesome examples show.

The problem I see is that the further we are removed from the cause of the creation of the constitution, the less folks give a rat's toot. Today the government would not and does not need to use force to undermine the intent of that piece of paper. Half the country would vote for it and the other half stay home and watch Nascar.

Daddy Mac

I can see that this thread has become rather heated, but please do not besmirch the good name of Nascar. Thank you.

saphena

HAP, you need to use a cooler colour next time, red's too hot.

__________________
Bob - Ringer, Iron Butt, not dead yet
Don't worry about running out fuel, carry a spare can

"Just because you're offended doesn't make you right" Ricky Gervais

Demonic

Agreed, but at the end of the day, that's us judging him by our standards. By his (evil) standards, that was a legitimate target. Supports my point, I think, that a well-armed population is not necessarily the best way to peace and freedom.


Exactly. Where was the well-armed populace on any of those cases? And can you name any instances where armed citizens HAVE confronted the government, and won? I mean, since the revolution?

Rather than depending on weapons to fight your own government, I think one of your Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, had it right when he said:
"I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness..."
Education and enlightenment are the only way to secure your liberty, not some bizarre faith in the power of your 9mm.

__________________
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

TheLuggage

What if you use your gun in a robbery to steal books? Enlightenment and validation of the 2nd amendment all in one; the system works.

Demonic

I didn't think of that. Or you could take a teacher hostage at gunpoint and force him to teach you calculus...

__________________
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

TheLuggage

Now you're getting it! That's the "can do" frontier kind of thinking that made this land grate.

Alaxtun

Well whether you're in favor or disfavor of the 2nd amendment doesn't really matter when you have to come up with logistic of disarming a population. Like it or not I believe guns are just here to stay because we have long ago past the point where a disarming would be possible. I nearly did a thesis on the topic of national disarmament but research was going to take to long. The issue at heart is always money in this country so the first huge speed hump to get over would be how do you get people to freely give up guns? There must be incentives. Mostly monetary. And the problem there is how much monetary incentive it would take to essentially have the government buy back all the privately owned guns. You're talking trillions and trillions of dollars needed to go that route. If you own 20 guns then you have about $20,000 in guns if not more. There are a ton of people out there with 20-100 gun collections. People aren't going to just give them away, there is value in them. And the notion of taking by force you might as well throw out right now. It would have violent reactions.