Post: #1

The Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr

‘The rabble of Gondor and its deluded allies shall withdraw at once beyond the Anduin, first taking oaths never again to assail Sauron the Great in arms, open or secret. All lands east of Anduin shall be Sauron’s for ever, solely. West of the Anduin as far as the Misty Mountains and the Gap of Rohan shall be tributary to Mordor, and men there shall bear no weapons, but shall have leave to govern their own affairs. But they shall help to rebuild Isengard which they have wantonly destroyed, and that shall be Sauron’s, and there his lieutenant shall dwell: not Saruman, but one more worthy of trust.’
Looking in the Messenger’s eyes they read his thought. He was to be that lieutenant, and gather all that remained of the West under his sway; he would be their tyrant and they his slaves.

I was reading some Lord of the Rings recently, the second part of The Hobbit comes out soon, and this passage jumped out at me. I've always seen gun control for what it is. The political establishment attempting to disarm its political enemies in order to further subjugate them. A free people does not lay down its arms

Post: #2

Are you American?

Post: #3

Yes.

Post: #4

What do you think of gun control outside of the US? Do you think it's only bad if it applies to Americans but it can actually be a good thing in other countries?

Post: #5

No, I think its bad applied anywhere. I'm living in the Czech Republic right now, which, is one of the least strict nations in Europe regarding guns. Basically, any Czech citizen willing to go through the process and who can afford owning a gun may have one. 5% of Czechs own a gun. 500,000 out of 10 million citizens. And thats just the percentage of legally registered ones. The Czech Republic has an extremely low violent crime rate. The thing about guns is, it doesn't really effect the violent crime rate. It's the culture that's important.

But its funny I was debating gun control with a Brit one night who said, "I love Prague because they don't allow guns. I don't know if I would love it as much without gun control, I wouldn't feel safe." An older Czech guy and I pointed out lots of people in Prague own guns. British guy was like, "Well, I guess my argument went out the window." The thing is, governments change and can become tyrannical. It's a fact of human behavior. A weapons bearing citizenry is simply a requirement for a free people.

Post: #6

(12-02-2013 06:26 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  What do you think of gun control outside of the US? Do you think it's only bad if it applies to Americans but it can actually be a good thing in other countries?

Here's 2 cents:

I believe people need to feel that their safety is in their own hands. When people lose a means of protecting themselves they begin to act like children and start to steadily become more and more dependent on authority figures (police, politicians, etc).

For owning a weapon is not just a way to defend yourself. It's a reminder that you never ever want to find yourself at the opposite end of the firearm and that only you can control your destiny. We can ramble on and on about history, freedom, whatever. When you have to act, do you want to wait 5 minutes for a response from 911 or are you comfortable to in essence bend over, leaving your dignity and life at the door.

Every individual in every country should understand the responsibility of owning a weapon and what it entails.

Oh and the government should fear its populace.

Post: #7

Australia essentially banned guns because of psychopath mass shootings. It would be enjoyable to watch you argue with Australians that they are not free, opening themselves up to tyrannical govt, etc.

At the same time I recognise that no policy would ever 'fix' US gun violence - it's too far gone down that path, there's no point in trying to restrict guns now.

Post: #8

Australians may be more free than Americans, however, it does open them up to tyranny in a sense losing their weapons.

By the way in Detroit the police take on average 58 minutes to respond to the scene of the crime.

Post: #9

(12-02-2013 06:47 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Australians may be more free than Americans, however, it does open them up to tyranny in a sense losing their weapons.

By the way in Detroit the police take on average 58 minutes to respond to the scene of the crime.

There are police in Detroit?

Post: #10

Those who support disarming the people are always anti freedom in a fundamental way.

They are actually not anti gun; they just want the State to have all the guns

Post: #11

(12-02-2013 06:44 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  Australia essentially banned guns because of psychopath mass shootings. It would be enjoyable to watch you argue with Australians that they are not free, opening themselves up to tyrannical govt, etc.

At the same time I recognise that no policy would ever 'fix' US gun violence - it's too far gone down that path, there's no point in trying to restrict guns now.

Australians are not free. The three levels of government, but especially local, are involved in a massive amount of micromanaging of people's affairs. I don't think that necessarily has anything to do with owning or not owning guns per se (or at least that guns would not solve those issues), but there is definitely a mindset that it's not only reasonable, but right, for government to be so involved in people's lives. Australians like to have an occasional whinge, but at least currently, they have convinced themselves that the nanny state is a good, or even great, thing. I don't think it is. It's one of the main reasons I no longer live there. It's funny, because daily life in Taiwan (and probably in much of the non-developed West) is so much freer than in Australia, though there are no guns here either. If you told people that the West isn't the bastion of freedom and all that is good that they've been raised to believe, they'd think you were crazy, but it's becoming more and more true by the day.

Post: #12

What people don't understand about guns and weapons: they are the only instruments which guarantee your freedoms. Writing out a bill of rights is great, but without the ability to defend and enforce your rights from a tyrannical government, you have no rights period. If you allow the government to have a monopoly on violence (which gun control does) you become a slave. Look at China, Soviet Union, etc.

George Washington famous remarked that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

In the Soviet union, people had paper rights--hell they even had their own constitution--- but that did not help you when the men in black uniforms came for you and your family in the dead of night with AK47s. All you could do was to scream and cry when they took daddy or mommy away for a thought crime and sent to a gulag to die. The kids were then sent for re-education training in government orphanages.

Post: #13

Gun rights in the US are to make sure the government cannot control you, we need the right to fight back. It as put into the constitution because British soldiers were taking housing in people's homes and the people had no recourse. The people should be as armed as the government is.

Post: #14

The funny thing is, the government's level of weapons technology is so advanced, their training so in-depth and their surveillance so meticulous and intrusive that if they wanted to oppress citizenry, there really wouldn't be much to it. Even if the citizenry is armed to the teeth.

AR-15 means fuck all if you've got manless drones blowing up whole towns to smithereens from 50 miles away.

The reason why guns should be legal is because they're fun as fuck to shoot. Out in the bush, a rifle, some prairie broad with a case of 24 cold beers sitting on a lawn chair nearby, me shooting cans off a tree, that's the life.

But they're not going to protect me from a government that has nukes, manless drones, surveillance satellites, weapons satellites, missiles, and the legend known as Obama.

Post: #15

Gun control has NOTHING to do with violence,crime or child safety like the gun grabbers want the low i.q. masses to believe.It's about people control. If the population is rendered defenseless and dependent on the .gov for everything the .gov elitist can pretty much do what they want.History has a way of repeating itself and anytime the citizenry is disarmed, tyranny and oppression soon follow. All the violence in America today all traces back directly and indirectly to the removal of fathers from the home and the break down of the nuclear family.Which oddly enough was caused by the same people that wanna take away all the evil guns. It's kinda ironic.

Post: #16

(12-02-2013 06:47 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Australians may be more free than Americans, however, it does open them up to tyranny in a sense losing their weapons.

By the way in Detroit the police take on average 58 minutes to respond to the scene of the crime.

Thats only if it's a murder. Otherwise you gotta handle it yourself.

Post: #17

(12-03-2013 08:31 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  The funny thing is, the government's level of weapons technology is so advanced, their training so in-depth and their surveillance so meticulous and intrusive that if they wanted to oppress citizenry, there really wouldn't be much to it. Even if the citizenry is armed to the teeth.

AR-15 means fuck all if you've got manless drones blowing up whole towns to smithereens from 50 miles away.

Fully agreed here. Sure, the people have numbers on their side, but when the most powerful civilian gun is a hobbled military gun from decades ago, it shows that when push comes to shove, there's gonna be a lot of dead neighborhood watch volunteers out there.

Post: #18

(12-04-2013 07:46 AM)augen sehen Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:31 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  The funny thing is, the government's level of weapons technology is so advanced, their training so in-depth and their surveillance so meticulous and intrusive that if they wanted to oppress citizenry, there really wouldn't be much to it. Even if the citizenry is armed to the teeth.

AR-15 means fuck all if you've got manless drones blowing up whole towns to smithereens from 50 miles away.

Fully agreed here. Sure, the people have numbers on their side, but when the most powerful civilian gun is a hobbled military gun from decades ago, it shows that when push comes to shove, there's gonna be a lot of dead neighborhood watch volunteers out there.

There are around 300 million firearms in private citizen's hands (and I don't think that includes black market/illegally owned weapons). If there was hypothetically some kind of domestic conflict in the US, there would probably be some factions that would a adopt a Taliban-like asymmetric warfare strategy and I think the government would have a very hard time putting it down, even with drones. Look at the war in Afghanistan.

No one wants that though. If the government (in the US or anywhere else) wants to disarm the population it will try to persuade people to do it voluntarily.

Post: #19

(12-04-2013 08:49 AM)NovaVirtu Wrote:  There are around 300 million firearms in private citizen's hands (and I don't think that includes black market/illegally owned weapons). If there was hypothetically some kind of domestic conflict in the US, there would probably be some factions that would a adopt a Taliban-like asymmetric warfare strategy and I think the government would have a very hard time putting it down, even with drones. Look at the war in Afghanistan.

No one wants that though. If the government (in the US or anywhere else) wants to disarm the population it will try to persuade people to do it voluntarily.

Afghanistan is a little different. That country has been almost perpetually at war since the 1970's. Lots of experienced fighters who are used to hardship, lots of young potential fighters with little or nothing to lose.

An uprising in the US would probably be pretty easy for the government to shut down following a China-like method - cutting off access to services like tv, internet and cell phone usage, straining modern communication methods, hampering organization and making recruitment difficult.

Cutting off services also hurts public support for anti-government forces, as people not involved in the movement want to keep on with their daily lives. The guerrilla moves among the people like fish in the sea. To catch the fish, one must drain the ocean. Remove their support and the anti-government movement lasts only as long as its members can evade government forces. The US has been teaching half the countries in the western hemisphere how to do this at the School of the Americas since the end of WWII.

Not to mention most household firearms wouldn't do well against the modern military. IED's are the leading cause of casualties in Afghanistan, not small arms fire. There's also other things to consider, like the sheer size of the country (an armed uprising would likely be contained geographically at first), a high value on voting over violence, etc, etc...