People Who Carry Guns are (usually) Assholes

[Wolf Larsen]

The importance we attach to the opinion of foreigners about our guns is precisely zero.

[Blind Mellow Jelly]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

Furriners are funny about shootin irons, is all.

No. Americans are funny about handguns, they are frankly schizophrenic about gun rights and will twist the constitution to paranoid proportions to defend something that has no application to the law.

[Khampelf]

Why am I arguing with a Frenchman?

I won't convince you, you won't convince me.

Go eat snails.

[Blind Mellow Jelly]

Ok, OC proponents, I believe (hypothetically) that the only way I am safe is by carrying a semi auto AR-15 everywhere I go by sling. Are you going to draw down on me with your glock if I enter your starbucks, armed as I see fit? I could be a shootist, for all you know.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by Blind Mellow Jelly

Ok, OC proponents, I believe (hypothetically) that the only way I am safe is by carrying a semi auto AR-15 everywhere I go by sling. Are you going to draw down on me with your glock if I enter your starbucks, armed as I see fit? I could be a shootist, for all you know.

Of course not, you're presenting no threat, not pointing at anyone etc. Are you folks incapable of understanding why armies can exist without all the troops turning on each other and wiping themselves out?

[Blind Mellow Jelly]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

Of course not, you're presenting no threat, not pointing at anyone etc. Are you folks incapable of understanding why armies can exist without all the troops turning on each other and wiping themselves out?

Armies exist in original source for pointing their weapons at foreign and domestic threats and wiping them out. That's all I need to understand.

...Same as it ever was.

Really, you could be in downtown portland carrying around a tactical assault rifle and enter a starbucks without 911 being called... and frankly everyone being terrorized? there is a difference between your ideals and social theater.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by Blind Mellow Jelly

Really, you could be in downtown portland carrying around a tactical assault rifle and enter a starbucks without 911 being called... and frankly everyone being terrorized?

Yup.

Originally Posted by Blind Mellow Jelly

there is a difference between your ideals and social theater.

and Yup.

[Blind Mellow Jelly]

You are a liar. This would never happen without terrorizing the population and leading to challenge.

[Jaglavak]

Straw man. I saw people in Starbucks with guns on and it didn't bother me a bit. You've got one, I've got one, no big deal. The only effect another law might have would be to take guns away from some folks but not others. That's fucking stupid.

Wishing won't make all the guns go away. Laws won't make them go away. Guns are here to stay and we have to deal with them.

[Blind Mellow Jelly]

Guns in social settings are on the way out. What do you think the lesson of Terrorism is?

[Khampelf]

The lesson of terrorism?

Those with the means and desire to kill trump those without the means to defend themselves. The element of surprise is a force multiplier, too.

The bad guys will always have guns, the gun laws affect only the law abiding. They don't apply to the terrorists until it's too late.

Yep. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Just because it fits on a bumper sticker doesn't mean it's not true.

[Blind Mellow Jelly]

Ok, real and within my community. A few years back there was an open carrying "cowboy" at my local Dairy Queen. The cops were called and he was found legal but socially outcast and inappropriate. I think it was the right call... you go to my Dairy Queen with so many kids and i will shoot you down.

[Jaglavak]

nm. I'm not having the gun debate all over again. I'm just glad that folks like me & Khampy outvote folks like you, Mellowman. No hard feelings.

[Blind Mellow Jelly]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

nm. I'm not having the gun debate all over again. I'm just glad that folks like me & Khampy outvote folks like you, Mellowman. No hard feelings.

Yea, this is an electio year. Just wait till I vote you out of releveance.

[Blind Mellow Jelly]

I'm surprised you can vote with so many illegal activities.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

Straw man. I saw people in Starbucks with guns on and it didn't bother me a bit.

Well, if it didn't bother you, than clearly it would never bother anybody else in the world.


Frankly, the per se act of open carrying a gun into a Starbucks is socially abnormal and maladapted behavior. Such people are dangerous. it's a warning sign. There is no reason to pack heat in a Starbucks anyway, but those who invest the entirety of their self-esteem on the thrill of having other people see them with a gun are not people I feel comfortable having my kids around in a public.

[Half-Man/Half-French]

Originally Posted by Khampelf

Why am I arguing with a Frenchman?

Wel, arguing would be presenting arguments, it's like that cuz it's like that has never been established as being an argument, here or there.

Originally Posted by Khampelf

The bad guys will always have guns.

On that I agree, except you obviously cant draw the logical conclusion to this. People that want guns when none are needed are the violent type.
This would make them "the bad guys", if we are to use the GI Joe political template.

[Half-Man/Half-French]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

nm. I'm not having the gun debate all over again. I'm just glad that folks like me & Khampy outvote folks like you, Mellowman. No hard feelings.

The constant refering to the Second Amendment is precisely because it supposedly protects that right, even if you are (or were) in the minority. If you feel so confident about it, then take off the Second Amendment from the constitution and let the States decide what policy they want on this.
Death penalty aint in the constitution.

[Fish]

I wonder if the whole gun argument is a red herring. Guns might deter violence, but they won't deter crime, because many crimes are economic in nature. People steal (setting aside those who simply like stealing) because they have to, or because it's easier than working, takes less skill, and so on. Our society promotes gun ownership as a way to defend yourself against criminals, but we often disregard the economic inequalities that create the need for theft in the first place. (Besides, if everybody is armed, that won't teach criminals not to steal; it'll just teach them to steal when you're not home.)

It's like Whitechapel in the 1880s. After the Ripper murders, the Victorians finally woke up to the poverty and violence and went on a crusade to revisit the economic imbalances and improve the awful living conditions. The NRA would've armed the citizens and hoped they'd fight it out among themselves until the crime went away.

Edit: And I concede that it might have made crime go away, in that region. It wouldn't have solved the underlying problem, though.

[Khampelf]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

nm. I'm not having the gun debate all over again. I'm just glad that folks like me & Khampy outvote folks like you, Mellowman. No hard feelings.

I'm trying to follow your example, I really am.


We've done this many times, let me just sum up and save us all the trouble.


Guns bad!

Not necessarily, they're just a tool, and more often do no or more good than harm.

Guns Bad!
Only bad men have guns!

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but there is also their use for sport and hunting. The right to do this is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Guns Bad!
Only police and army should have guns!

That leaves us defenseless against tyranny, which was definitely not what this country was about when it started.

Guns Bad!!
You're a terrorist, you hate america!

Whatever, dude. I'm glad to be an American where these rights are protected. It would be a political nightmare to try to change the 2nd Amendment and disarm the American populace.

Guns Bad!!
Guns Bad!!
Guns Bad!!
Guns Bad!!


Sigh. I guess we'll just have to leave it here again.

I hope I've saved us all some precious time.

[Uthrecht]

I'll save you more time and post the rebuttal: use Khampelf's post structure with attempts at reasoned discussion about why an unarmed society works, interspersed with GUNS GOOD! comments.

[Khampelf]

An unarmed populace is at the mercy of their armed government. The U.S. was founded on avoiding this situation.

An unarmed state is at the mercy of armed states.

Human beings are violent pack animals, nothing's going to change that.


Whose signature read something like "I can picture a peaceful word where violence is unheard of, and I can picture us totally conquering that world." ?

An unarmed society is unrealistic for human beings.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by Blind Mellow Jelly

You are a liar.

This is more of a procedural thing, rather than an emotional one: FUCK YOU. I have never been accused of being dishonest in my adult life.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by Khampelf

An unarmed populace is at the mercy of their armed government. The U.S. was founded on avoiding this situation.

I love this. This is my favorite thing, when gun nuts start talking about how they think they can defeat the entirety of the United States Armed Forces with their deer rifles. Talk about hubris.

Guess what, an armed populace has no more chance than an unarmed populace. A bunch of Billy Bobs with deer rifles are going to be bugs on the windshield if they try to revolt against the US.

And for the record, I will personally always side with America against any gun nut insurgency.

[Glazer]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

I love this. This is my favorite thing, when gun nuts start talking about how they think they can defeat the entirety of the United States Armed Forces with their deer rifles. Talk about hubris.

Guess what, an armed populace has no more chance than an unarmed populace. A bunch of Billy Bobs with deer rifles are going to be bugs on the windshield if they try to revolt against the US.

And for the record, I will personally always side with America against any gun nut insurgency.

First off America is not the government. America is her people. If the government no longer serves the people then the people have a duty to overthrow the government.

Secondly Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the U.S. Armed Forces only has limited success against an insurgency. Even more so if the loyalty of the troops are divided as they would be in a domestic conflict.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by Glazer

First off America is not the government. America is her people. If the government no longer serves the people then the people have a duty to overthrow the government.

First of all, the people ARE the government. There's no separation. Look it up, it's called "democracy." What are you going to replace it with? Ted Nugent?

Secondly, I can't wait to watch a bunch of you loudmouths try to fight the US military. It's going to hilarious. Short, but hilarious.

Secondly Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the U.S. Armed Forces only has limited success against an insurgency. Even more so if the loyalty of the troops are divided as they would be in a domestic conflict.

Their unity would not be divided. If you think a significant number would turn traitor with you, you're dreaming.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

I can't wait to watch a bunch of you loudmouths try to fight the US military.

I'd be happy to wait indefinitely.




Still, if the Throw Down ever comes it will be the Rural States vs. the Populous Ones.


[URL="States with the largest number of nuclear weapons (in 1999): New Mexico (2,450), Georgia (2,000), Washington (1,685), Nevada (1,350), and North Dakota (1,140) William M. Arkin, Robert S. Norris, and Joshua Handler, Taking Stock: Worldwide Nuclear Deployments 1998 (Washington, D.C.: Natural Resources Defense Council, March 1998)"[/URL]

Little Help with the link? I R dumb.

[Ken S.]

Yeah, you do know the states themselves don't actually have any control over those missile silos, don't you?

Why do you think the states would battle each other anyway? There really aren't any solid red states and blue states, after all, just shades of purple. It's not like all or any of these states are going to be ideologically unified, and what would they be fighting each other FOR. These scenarios are about as plausible as Gilligan's Island.

This whole idea that the 2nd Amendment protects people from the government (i.e. THEMSELVES) is disingenuous contrivance and juvenile fantasy. You already ARE the government. What are you going to replace yourself with?

[Jaglavak]

Don't get drawn into his bullshit, Chaco.

"States with the largest number of nuclear weapons (in 1999): New Mexico (2,450), Georgia (2,000), Washington (1,685), Nevada (1,350), and North Dakota (1,140)"

William M. Arkin, Robert S. Norris, and Joshua Handler, Taking Stock, Worldwide Nuclear Deployments 1998 (Washington, D.C. Natural Resources Defense Council, March 1998) (PDF file)

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

Yeah, you do know the states themselves don't actually have any control over those missile silos, don't you?

Well, there's the electricity thing.

[Ken S.]

What electrical function do you think you're going to be able to shut off? Do you think these silos are hooked up the local power companies? The idea that you think you can take control of a missile facility is laughable.



I'd still like to know who you're going to nuke?

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

Well, there's the electricity thing.

You are correct that nearly all military bases get their power from the commercial grid. But that's not going to help with a silo. That's a different animal altogether. There's literally nothing a civilian can do that would even get their attention once they have locked those doors. Besides, you don't use a flamethrower in a closet. Nukes wouldn't be a factor in a civil war (I fucking hope).

[Ken S.]

Just by odd coincidence, my dad was actually the commanding munition and missile maintenance officer at Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota once.

That gives me exactly zero personal knowledge about missile wings, but I do know my dad has told me that civilians being able to either break into a silo or be able to hack into the missile control network is basically physically impossible.

[Ken S.]

For the record, I support gun rights, but the whole "protect ourselves from the government" trope is just silly.

[Glazer]

I don't think anyone here is advocating rebellion. I certainly am not. But I can foresee the possibility of a need to do so. A government of the people is not a guarantee. If that ever fails to be the case then it will be time to do something about it. In the current political climate, no, no one in the military would turn traitor. But if large scale civil uprising like in the U.S.S.R. in '89 or Egypt last year then the loyalty of many of the troops would be in question. The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. Questioning the motives of those in power is part of that vigilance. Blind loyalty is the path to oppression.

[Jaglavak]

All of what you say is true. But I think it's a pretty remote possibility.

[Glazer]

And it will stay remote as long as we pay attention.

[Jaglavak]

I'm on board with that.

[Ken S.]

What would you replace democracy with?

[Ratel]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

What would you replace democracy with?

A meritocracy.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by Ratel

A meritocracy.

How do you structure a meritocratic government?

[Ratel]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

How do you structure a meritocratic government?

Bearing in mind that this is meritocracy Ratel style. In my meritocracy it starts with the voter. I think "one man one vote" sucks. Uninformed votes equal informed votes. This plays into the hands of the emotive populist.

You should be able to increase the merit value of your vote - Start with 1 point for merely being born in the country, then add another point for achieving Grade 10, another for Grade 12. Then another for a tertiary education, or military training, or some form of community service at the local hospital. Or you can choose the option of passing a basic political science course, if you don't like the sight of blood. Then maybe another point for limited offspring, or voluntary sterilization.

This way the informed, the educated, the invested can vote into power an informed, educated and invested government.

Right now we have "leaders" who are placed into positions based purely on their "struggle" credentials. We have entire departments being run into the ground because the management are party loyalists who haven't a fucking clue what they are doing.

And then of course there is corruption.

But hey, what do I know. I'm just an ageing hippy with authority issues.

[Fish]

That's a wonderfully spirited concept, Ratel, but I fear a meritocracy would be gamed by various communities that would offer up their own "merit points." 1 point to be a farmer, 1 point for belonging in a church, 1 point for doing community service in a church, 10 points for being a multimillionaire. There's nothing wrong with any of those things, but when you start offering citizenship points, people will want credit for doing whatever it is they're doing, and fuck those other people who do what they do. There have always been factions, going back to the beginning, who felt that stupid people weren't as important as rich businessmen and should consequently have less say.

[Pere]

Even if the particular standards were somehow "good" ones and not wildly subject to corruption, the idea of incremental ranking of citizen value sounds horrifying.

[Glazer]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

What would you replace democracy with?

A democratic Republic.

[Ken S.]

Well then America is way ahead of you.

[Glazer]

Ken you sound as if you think we can't lose our democracy. Sure nutbags think that we already have. But thinking that things can't change for the worse is equally screwy.

[Ken S.]

How could we possibly lose it? What is a plausible, reasonable scenario by which anybody could seize some kind of despotic power over the US. I think the idea is ridiculous.

[Mr. Plumbean]

By rigging the machines, passing laws that suppress the vote, spending gadwads of money brainwashing a gullible public into voting against their interests. Of course the people deliberately quashing democracy will do much of that in the name of "the constitution" and "freedom."

[Uthrecht]

Yes, but all that accomplishes is rigging an election, something that is not without historical precedent (and I'm not talking recent history per se). It doesn't guarantee the *loss* of democracy, it just subverts it temporarily (my point being that history has shown that this kind of thing, when it does occur, often gets pulled back into balance later). To actually *lose* democracy, those who got into office would then need to rework the system of government, which would ultimately require all three branches of government to back it.