Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As a Video Game To be Developer I can say that the video game thing is quite wrong. Having seen a few good people actually die, I can say I am no desantized to the situations that happened.

A great example of violence being used as a tool for education would be Spec Ops: The Line
But anyway. I agree with the Special Forces.

 LordofHats wrote:
Here's the funny conversation that usually follows such claims:

Me: "Hunting rifles don't stop tanks, jet fighters, or drones."
Other Person: "Just because the government is tyrannical doesn't mean the military will back them up!"
Me: "Go find me a tyrannical regime that doesn't have at the very least, nominal support of the military. Go on. I'll wait."
Other Person: "Maybe some of the military will be on our side!"
Me: "That's called a Civil War. And your hunting rifle still ain't gonna do gak."

This argument worked when the only difference between military arms and private arms was that the guy with the military arms was conventionally trained as a combatant. This is no true in the world. The idea that having guns somehow protects the rights of the citizenry from the modern state is absurd, defies all logic, and really just comes down the wishful thinking of some dream scenario where the government is really so bad that we have to use all our hunting rifles to oppose them, while not having to somehow simultaneously oppose the US military or even a few SWAT teams.

Your gun isn't protecting you from the government.

So I should just take your word for it rather than looking at all the examples to the contrary?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Just because freedom of speech exists in other first-world countries doesn't mean that the second amendment doesn't help protect our other rights in the US. If we didn't have the 2nd amendment, that does not mean the government would instantly become tyrannical. However, the 2nd amendment helps to guard against that possibility and makes it easier for citizens to do something about it if it does happen.

Here's the funny conversation that usually follows such claims:

Me: "Hunting rifles don't stop tanks, jet fighters, or drones."
Other Person: "Just because the government is tyrannical doesn't mean the military will back them up!"
Me: "Go find me a tyrannical regime that doesn't have at the very least, nominal support of the military. Go on. I'll wait."
Other Person: "Maybe some of the military will be on our side!"
Me: "That's called a Civil War. And your hunting rifle still ain't gonna do gak."

This argument worked when the only difference between military arms and private arms was that the guy with the military arms was conventionally trained as a combatant. This is no true in the world. The idea that having guns somehow protects the rights of the citizenry from the modern state is absurd, defies all logic, and really just comes down the wishful thinking of some dream scenario where the government is really so bad that we have to use all our hunting rifles to oppose them, while not having to somehow simultaneously oppose the US military or even a few SWAT teams.

Your gun isn't protecting you from the government.

You realize that full-fledged "hunting rifles" and sniper rifles are basically the same thing, right? Except "hunting rifles" usually have wooden stocks and sniper rifles usually have polymer stocks? There are a lot of people out there who have a lot more than just "hunting rifles" too.

I also point out, every time someone makes the comment that you just made, that insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been able to put up heavy resistance against very well-equipped, modern militaries while being drastically outmatched in terms of weapons. The same is true in Syria. You don't need tanks, jet fighters, or drones to successfully resist an army with tanks, jet fighters, or drones. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand when we've been seeing evidence of that for over ten years now in the Middle East and Asia.

 NELS1031 wrote:
Haha.

I had a feeling you were and was going to state it, but I'm sure there's someone out there that just got educated.

Addendum :Thats @ whembly.

That was the point!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's interesting that the First Amendment is reckoned less important than the second.

? How do you figure... I don't believe they're advocating that GOVERNMENT steps in... only that as a culture, we should have this discussion...

So I should just take your word for it rather than looking at all the examples to the contrary?

I'm still waiting.

 Hordini wrote:
You realize that full-fledged "hunting rifles" and sniper rifles are basically the same thing, right? Except "hunting rifles" usually have wooden stocks and sniper rifles usually have polymer stocks? There are a lot of people out there who have a lot more than just "hunting rifles" too.

I was unware US citizens owned RPG's, SAW's and, C4 (though I admit a clever person could make some of that or something just as good).

I also point out, every time someone makes the comment that you just made, that insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been able to put up heavy resistance against very well-equipped, modern militaries while being drastically outmatched in terms of weapons.

They're fighting enemies with home bases on the other side of the planet in extremely rough terrain. Unless we're talking about being invaded by China, it's not really applicable. The Taliban also have the benefit of not being under an assault weapons ban.

The same is true in Syria. You don't need tanks, jet fighters, or drones to successfully resist an army with tanks, jet fighters, or drones. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand when we've been seeing evidence of that for over ten years now in the Middle East and Asia.

Because Syria is a modern state with an effectively lead and administered military. Oh wait, they're not... Right... Do we really need to go over the monumental social, political, and economic differences between a modern fulled developed state and a failing third-world state? The silly part about your examples, is that they all take place under completely different circumstances than the one you propose guns protect US citizens from. Why can't you actually give an example that's on point? I suppose it might be because we have yet to see a modern state undergo such a event... Probably a reason for that but to admit it would ruin the fantasy that owning a gun serves some grand purpose beyond owning a gun.

EDIT: Oh, and how are those rebels doing btw? Still holed up in a city surrounded by the Syrian army? Lets not forget that much of the Arab Spring revolutions were committed by what were largely unarmed citizenries and involved a rather impressive lack of blood considering the last spree of revolutions in region, Syria and Libya being the exceptions.

Note: I don't have a problem with gun ownership, just with the numerous fantasies pro-gun rights groups seem to indulge in.

I must admit I was agreeing with the argument right up until until all that ill informed nonsense about video games and movies.

You can take my PS3 controller from my cold dead hand!

Patriot Act, NDAA, domestic surveillance, drones....

I'm glad all the gun folks suddenly give a crap about the bill of rights, would have been nice to see them say something over the last 10 years. If the 2nd protects all the other amendments then the gun owners must have been pretty lazy to allow all these attacks to happen. Because they sure let the tyrannical government chip away at the 1st, 4th, 5th...heck, we are assassinating citizens because its too hard to catch them for a trial. But touch the guns that we need to prevent that, even though we didn't, and now suddenly people care?

 d-usa wrote:
Patriot Act, NDAA, domestic surveillance, drones....

I'm glad all the gun folks suddenly give a crap about the bill of rights, would have been nice to see them say something over the last 10 years. If the 2nd protects all the other amendments then the gun owners must have been pretty lazy to allow all these attacks to happen. Because they sure let the tyrannical government chip away at the 1st, 4th, 5th...heck, we are assassinating citizens because its too hard to catch them for a trial. But touch the guns that we need to prevent that, even though we didn't, and now suddenly people care?

Hey. They're gonna take the guns away! That's the only right really worth fighting for! With guns!

Perhaps the greatest irony for gun-rights is that its most often associated with the Right, which is also associated with being anti-gay marriage, pro-life, anti-immigrant, pro-strong law enforcement, and a whole list of other things that are so easily painted as being anti-freedom, anti-equal rights (lets not forget a strong military, which essentially entails a strong national government... which they are simultaneously afraid will start taking their rights away and need to be fought with guns XD). All those things guns supposedly protect. Strange bed fellows indeed

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's interesting that the First Amendment is reckoned less important than the second.

The second ammendment helps protect the first ammendment.


...

Not in this case.

It's like they want to sacrifice the first amendment to save the second.

If you worship the constitution it doesn't make sense.

 d-usa wrote:
Patriot Act, NDAA, domestic surveillance, drones....

I'm glad all the gun folks suddenly give a crap about the bill of rights, would have been nice to see them say something over the last 10 years. If the 2nd protects all the other amendments then the gun owners must have been pretty lazy to allow all these attacks to happen. Because they sure let the tyrannical government chip away at the 1st, 4th, 5th...heck, we are assassinating citizens because its too hard to catch them for a trial. But touch the guns that we need to prevent that, even though we didn't, and now suddenly people care?

I don't agree with much in any of those, but unless they actually violate the Bill of RIghts its not an issue.
Also interesting that people who foam at the mouth about the First Amendment have no problem abridging the Second.

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't agree with much in any of those, but unless they actually violate the Bill of RIghts its not an issue.
Also interesting that people who foam at the mouth about the First Amendment have no problem abridging the Second.

It's almost like special interests will advance their interests at the expense of all others to the point of contradiction.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's almost like special interests will advance their interests at the expense of all others to the point of contradiction.

What exactly is the pro-gun movement being contradictory about?

 LordofHats wrote:

So I should just take your word for it rather than looking at all the examples to the contrary?

I'm still waiting.

 Hordini wrote:
You realize that full-fledged "hunting rifles" and sniper rifles are basically the same thing, right? Except "hunting rifles" usually have wooden stocks and sniper rifles usually have polymer stocks? There are a lot of people out there who have a lot more than just "hunting rifles" too.

I was unware US citizens owned RPG's, SAW's and, C4 (though I admit a clever person could make some of that or something just as good).

I also point out, every time someone makes the comment that you just made, that insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been able to put up heavy resistance against very well-equipped, modern militaries while being drastically outmatched in terms of weapons.

They're fighting enemies with home bases on the other side of the planet in extremely rough terrain. Unless we're talking about being invaded by China, it's not really applicable. The Taliban also have the benefit of not being under an assault weapons ban.

The same is true in Syria. You don't need tanks, jet fighters, or drones to successfully resist an army with tanks, jet fighters, or drones. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand when we've been seeing evidence of that for over ten years now in the Middle East and Asia.

Because Syria is a modern state with an effectively lead and administered military. Oh wait, they're not... Right... Do we really need to go over the monumental social, political, and economic differences between a modern fulled developed state and a failing third-world state? The silly part about your examples, is that they all take place under completely different circumstances than the one you propose guns protect US citizens from. Why can't you actually give an example that's on point? I suppose it might be because we have yet to see a modern state undergo such a event... Probably a reason for that but to admit it would ruin the fantasy that owning a gun serves some grand purpose beyond owning a gun.

EDIT: Oh, and how are those rebels doing btw? Still holed up in a city surrounded by the Syrian army? Lets not forget that much of the Arab Spring revolutions were committed by what were largely unarmed citizenries and involved a rather impressive lack of blood considering the last spree of revolutions in region, Syria and Libya being the exceptions.

Note: I don't have a problem with gun ownership, just with the numerous fantasies pro-gun rights groups seem to indulge in.

You're right in that we haven't seen something like that happen in a first-world nation. I can't tell you I know how it would turn out, because I don't know. I do know it would be ugly, and would probably turn into a civil war of some kind.

In the case of Syria, no, they don't have a first-world military, but their military does have tanks, heavy weapons, and aircraft. I don't know how close the rebels are to winning or losing, but the fact that they're still holding out says a lot. Obviously the situation in the US would not look the same as in other countries, but it would be likely that the military would split, with some siding with the government and some siding with the people who would choose to resist. The exact circumstances are all speculation at this point, but I find it unlikely that the US military would exert its full force on its own people, on its own land. They are not going to start deploying nuclear weapons on the continental US, or carpet bomb American cities. Whatever the circumstances, I'd rather not be unarmed.

And the thing is, it doesn't take some huge civil war apocalypse scenario to have a situation where a weapon would come in handy. All it takes is a bad natural disaster, or a large riot to create a significant number of people who are effectively on your own. There are already tons of rural areas in the US where police response is going to be measured in tens of minutes at the absolute best and in some places it could even be hours, depending on how far out you live. It's completely immoral for the government to disarm law-abiding citizens, and that includes banning things that are currently legal like AR-15s.



And just to be clear, I do disagree about the treatment of video games and other media in the Special Forces letter. I support the 1st amendment as much as I do the 2nd, and I absolutely refuse to choose one over the other. We have both, and that's the way it should stay.

Anyway. Everyone's getting worked up for nothing. We all know the AWB has no chance of passing.

I don't think there is any problem with amending the constitution. It has been done many times, after all.

It would be stupid not to be able to, if it is needed.

There isn't any contradiction between supporting the first amendment and wanting to amend the second amendment.

There is a contradiction between saying that the constitution is awesome, so we don't need to amend it, and suggesting it would be a good idea to restrict freedom of speech.

 Seaward wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
It's almost like special interests will advance their interests at the expense of all others to the point of contradiction.

What exactly is the pro-gun movement being contradictory about?

That guns are a constitutional right; and saving a few lives isn't worth infringing upon it.

But that the constitutional rights to not have searches without warrants, detention without trials, freedom of religion, assassinations without trials can be infringed upon if they save lives.

At least according to 95% of pro-bill of rights (aka pro-gun) people on Facebook.

 d-usa wrote:
That guns are a constitutional right; and saving a few lives isn't worth infringing upon it.

But that the constitutional rights to not have searches without warrants, detention without trials, freedom of religion, assassinations without trials can be infringed upon if they save lives.

At least according to 95% of pro-bill of rights (aka pro-gun) people on Facebook.

Wait a minute. I'm not sure the anti-gun side gets to argue that there's no popular movement for a complete ban on guns, and then turn around and point to Facebook as their proof that the pro-gun side would love a return to the Quartering Acts.

Am I the anti-gun side? News to me.

Fine: FoxNews doesn't care about doing whatever it takes to "stop the terrorists" as long as it saves lives.

The subject here is the "Special Forces" letter to America.

Let's not diversify into FaceBook.

Okay: I work with tons of military (who often claim to be special forces), and they also haven't raised a finger to complain about the tyranical government being tyranical until they started to talk about guns.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think there is any problem with amending the constitution. It has been done many times, after all.

It would be stupid not to be able to, if it is needed.

There isn't any contradiction between supporting the first amendment and wanting to amend the second amendment.

There is a contradiction between saying that the constitution is awesome, so we don't need to amend it, and suggesting it would be a good idea to restrict freedom of speech.

Amending the constitution and amending the bill of rights in order to further limit our rights are two different things.


And d-usa: Just because people put up with a certain level of tyranny for a certain amount of time doesn't mean they will put up with it forever. Maybe the idea of a gun ban is what it would take to get some peoples' attention and stop trying to justify further limitations on our rights. Everybody has issues that they care strongly about as well, and which issues those are often differ from person to person.

 Hordini wrote:
You're right in that we haven't seen something like that happen in a first-world nation. I can't tell you I know how it would turn out, because I don't know. I do know it would be ugly, and would probably turn into a civil war of some kind.

I just like pointing out even when disagreeing people can agree. It will suredly be ugly

I don't know how close the rebels are to winning or losing, but the fact that they're still holding out says a lot.

Depends on how one defines winning in losing. If surviving is winning, than their winning. if achieving their actual goal is winning, they lost a long time ago. Syria's government won't be falling anytime soon by all indications (well... Unless they throw out chemical weapons, but then it'll probably be the west overthrowing them, not the rebels and thats just a maybe).

Obviously the situation in the US would not look the same as in other countries, but it would be likely that the military would split, with some siding with the government and some siding with the people who would choose to resist.

And this is where the inherent flaw comes in. Find me an example of a tyrannical rule that didn't have at the very least, have nominal support of the military. US government can't just, swoop in and seize everyone's rights. It takes force, control, and frankly, a militaristic arm. A government that cannot maintain at least nominal control of its monopoly on force cannot be tyrannical because it ends up with no means by which to effectively enforce its tyranny (this is typically an inherent result of mixing one's military with one's law enforcement, something that is for all intents and purposes, is impossible in a developed state that draws distinct lines between civilian political authority and military authority). The US government will never have the support of the military in establishing a tyrannical rule.

The only way such a thing can happen is through tyranny of the majority, which the US has numerous checks in place to prevent, making this scenario unlikely except in situations where that majority is so overwhelming that there won't be anyone around to really offer any opposition.

I don't feel any scenario exists in the foreseeable future that would result in the US actually engaging in an armed citizenry opposing a tyrannical government. The only likely scenarios are ones where right and left continue pulling apart, which becomes a civil conflict, not a rebellion or a revolutions, and given current US politics, that won't be a war against tyranny, but a war for which side gets to be tyrannical.

And just to cut off the head before it flies off on its own, a government does not give up a monopoly on force by letting its citizens own the military equivalent of a pop gun.

It's completely immoral for the government to disarm law-abiding citizens, and that includes banning things that are currently legal like AR-15s.

I don't disagree. I'm merely trying to point out that the grandious "guns protect citizens from tyranny" argument, is a faux reality (at least in relation to the modern United States). It gets thrown out because pro-gun folks want an argument that can actually be argued in American politics, cause lets face it, fear mongering government tyranny is way more effective than appealing to morality.

Except I am pretty sure that if we did a search through the off-topic here you will find that many if the defenders of the 2nd had no problems defending the erosion of other amendments for our safety.

I do agree with you that some kind of government tyranny apocalypse is unlikely, LordofHats, but like I think we probably already agree on, there are a lot of other reasons to have firearms.

And d-usa I'm sure there are 2nd amendment supporters who defended the erosion of other amendments, just how there are certainly 1st amendment supporters who defended the erosion of other amendments "for our safety," but I think that just supports the idea that eroding our rights "for safety" is generally a very bad idea.

Who's saying we haven't seen it in a First World Nation? People seem to be forgetting:
Italy,
Spain,
Germany,
Greece.
near coup in France.

 Frazzled wrote:
Who's saying we haven't seen it in a First World Nation? People seem to be forgetting:
Italy,
Spain,
Germany,
Greece.
near coup in France.

I'm using the phrase developed state, instead of first world (this may be my fault though cause I'll bet people will use these interchangeably where as in my mind they identify two different things), for a reason and I'm noting the radical advances of a modern military compared to those of the 19th century for a reason.

The dynamic has changed. What's the difference between a US citizen in 1860 and a US soldier in 1860? Not much; a uniform, conventional training in combat, maybe a higher quality fire arm. Canons are all a soldier could claim to have that a civilian wouldn't. What's the difference between a US citizen in 2010 and a US soldier in 2010? Body armor. Fully automatic weapons. Hand grenades. Air borne and ground based heavy weapons platforms. Electronic surveillance and information gathering on a scale no civilian could match. Even police forces have access to some of these things. The idea that the 2nd amendment provides for an armed citizenry capable of militarily opposing the US government, is horribly outdated.

Given France's almost stereotypical political instability throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, they're hardly a proper comparison. They may be developed by economic and social standards but they didn't have political stability. Likewise, we can look back and see how terribly weak Italy was throughout much of the modern period, economically, socially, politically. Italy wasn't even a state until the second half of the 19th century. Spain wouldn't be a fully developed nation until the second half of the 20th (and today both Italy and Spain are economically precarious). Last I checked Germany went through a long line of governmental transitions that did not involve citizens storming the capital with their guns, and like Italy, Germany didn't become a state until the second half of the 19th century. The US if it has one thing going for it, has been a united state (no pun) for 200 years, baring a 6 year conflict in the mid-19th century that only cemented the political stability of the state post war.

And Greece? Um, they're still not a first world country, nor a developed one.

Wait so now you're saying Italy, Spain, Germany, and France aren't developed states? The top two strongest members of the EU aren't developed?

So who's developed then boyo?

If it can happen there, it can happen here. Hell we have a civil war going on WITHIN DRIVING DISTANCE OF MY HOUSE.

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait so now you're saying Italy, Spain, Germany, and France aren't developed states? The top two strongest members of the EU aren't developed?

What armed revolution happened in any of those states in the last 50 years? The fall of Franco's Spain? Reunification of Germany? The EU hasn't been around that long, and if you bothered to read some history, you'd know that three of those states would not stable in any sense until after WWII (even France remained somewhat unstable after WWII with De Gaul around). One could even say Germany ceased being a state between 1945 and 1994, being divided and all. Stop confusing the modern status of these states with their past.

Just throwing it out there: I supported the erosion of our civil.rights for the past decade (twas but a teenager), but now that i'm more mature and more aware I very much regret it.

Also, I'm curious why nobody is pointing out that the Supreme Court established that the 2nd Amendment allows for the ownership of all arms "in common use" by the military? I want my fully automatic weapons damnit!

chaos0xomega wrote:
Also, I'm curious why nobody is pointing out that the Supreme Court established that the 2nd Amendment allows for the ownership of all arms "in common use" by the military? I want my fully automatic weapons damnit!

Cause we still take a page from the big book of Andrew Jackson from time to time