Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,178 Year: 5,435/9,624 Month: 460/323 Week: 100/204 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control
Straggler
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 258 of 310 (669623)
07-31-2012 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Jon
07-31-2012 5:23 PM


Re: Democracy 101
Jon writes:
The issue of whether a citizenry should be allowed to arm itself or not comes down to one very simple point: It is against the very principles of democracy to empower a government over its people.
The government has access to fighter jets, surface to air missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nukes.... etc. etc.
What weapons do you think the citzenry should have access to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Jon, posted 07-31-2012 5:23 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-31-2012 6:05 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 263 by Jon, posted 07-31-2012 8:01 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 261 of 310 (669626)
07-31-2012 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Artemis Entreri
07-31-2012 6:05 PM


Re: Democracy 101
Jon writes:
What weapons do you think the citzenry should have access to?
Skunk writes:
All firearms.
Why?
Why not (for example) bazookas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-31-2012 6:05 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-01-2012 11:50 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(7)
(1)
Message 278 of 310 (669675)
08-01-2012 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Jon
07-31-2012 8:01 PM


Re: Democracy 101
Straggler writes:
The government has access to fighter jets, surface to air missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nukes.... etc. etc.
What weapons do you think the citzenry should have access to?
Jon writes:
Whatever would be necessary to defend against an armed government.
I find this entire argument that a citzenry should be armed to the point that it can remotely hope to match the firwepower of it's own government bewildering, bizzarre and (more to the point) unrealistic to the point of nonsensical.
The US government has a trillion + dollar annual military budget. It has entire research establishments designing cutting edge weaponry to kill people in the most effective ways imaginable. Jets, tanks, submarines, missiles, bombs, chemical and biological capabilities etc. etc. etc. As a military superpower the US has the capability to wipe out whole cities, nations - even continents full of people.
Yet the same people (broadly speaking) who support a superpower strength US military capable of taking on the combined armies of most of the rest of the world simultaneously claim that Joe the Plumber and his buddies need to have the firepower resources to take on this same superpower strength military.
It just isn't possible or realistic. In fact it's just silly.
Of course if you are really concerned about the strength of the government military as compared to that of the US citizenry you could drastically downgrade US government military capabilities.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Jon, posted 07-31-2012 8:01 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 12:56 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 291 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2012 6:40 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 290 of 310 (669698)
08-01-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Jon
08-01-2012 12:56 PM


Re: Democracy 101
Jon writes:
Please learn to read.
Oh stop being sily.
Jon writes:
I never stated that I support a 'superpower strength US military'.
I never specifically said YOU did.
Jon writes:
Nor have I argued that any single individual should hold power equal to that of an entire nation's military forces.
You have argued that the citizenry should bear arms such that they are capable of taking on the government military.
So tell me - Do you think the citizenry should have access to the same level of armament that the military has access to?
What level of armament do you think the US military should be eqipped with? Tanks? Subs? Missiles? Fighter jets? Nukes? Smart bombs? Bio tech weapons?
Jon writes:
Whatever would be necessary to defend against an armed government.
What level of armament yom think the military should be equipped with and would you advocate the citenzenry matching that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 12:56 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 6:59 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 297 of 310 (669749)
08-02-2012 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by New Cat's Eye
08-01-2012 6:40 PM


Re: Democracy 101
I'm glad you are not one of those advocating civilian guns as some sort of method of holding the national military at bay.
But the alternative reasons you give for gun ownership don't make much more sense really. For example is there any evidence that governments in places where guns are not widely available (e.g. the UK) go round forcing people out of their homes and suchlike? Is it really because people own guns that the US government doesn't generally do such things? In states where guns are more controlled does this happen more?
CS writes:
The Founders thought that the security of the free state depended on the People being armed.
I'm sure they did. But all the evidence of modern Western democratic states suggests that people being armed really isn't necessary to that end.
Straggler writes:
Why not (for example) bazookas?
CS writes:
They're too dangerous.
Well how dangerous is "too dangerous"...? Death rate stats in the US suggest that guns are "too dangerous" don't they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2012 6:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Jon, posted 08-02-2012 9:35 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 300 of 310 (669752)
08-02-2012 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Jon
08-02-2012 9:35 AM


Re: Democracy 101
Jon writes:
But what happens when those in power decide they want just a little more power?
Well in recent times they foster a climate of fear against a rather vague and never ending threat and then take it in the name of national security.
Jon writes:
How do the people stand up and say 'enough is enough' when they've nothing to stand on?
If you think the citizenry owning pistols and suchlike is "something to stand on" then we are back to your idiotic advocacy of Joe the plumber and his buddies taking on the military might of a superpower again.
Do you think the citizenry should have access to the same level of armament that the military has access to?
The US military is equipped with tanks, subs, missiles, fighter jets, nukes, smart bombs, biotech weapons and heaven alone knows what else.
What level of armament do you think the citizenry needs to match that?
Jon writes:
Get real!
Quite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Jon, posted 08-02-2012 9:35 AM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024