Gun Rights

[Alyakia]

God bless America.

It's absurd to depend upon the police to protect you. It's also absurd to depend upon them for justice, sometimes.

Then the solution is to create an effective police force.

[Alyakia]

Define "less than friendly groups" please.

IRA/RAF/ETA/Al-Queda/etc.

Or your equivalent groups. Or pretend the world became a paradise/things innveitable got smuggled out.

[Der Teutoniker]

IRA/RAF/ETA/Al-Queda/etc.

IRA, RAF, and Al-Queda operate under American licensure? That's strange.

The deal is, one would be able to pursue licensure (centered mainly around proper training, safety, and upkeep - as well as applicable laws) through the US government (or perhaps state governments) to legally obtain military-grade hardware. Terrorist factions (who operate almost entirely outside of the law) have no need to pursue licensure... nothing is stopping them from getting illegal weapons (like they do now) that would not stop them under my system. For example, almost no gun-related crime is committed with legally owned, and carried firearms. Almost all gun crime is committed by illegally owned firearms. Restricting gun ownership rights would not decrease the number of illegal guns in circulation. Similarly, expanding legal options for attaining military-grade firearms does not effect ones ability to obtain the product illegal. It's illegal now, to obtain a fighter jet without my proposed licensure - that would not change.

In other words, if they would be able to get this hardware under my ideal system, nothing is stopping them from getting it now.

[Der Teutoniker]

Then the solution is to create an effective police force.

Citizens as their own local constabulary? Sounds great to me.

[Alyakia]

IRA/RAF/ETA/Al-Queda/etc.

IRA, RAF, and Al-Queda operate under American licensure? That's strange.

The deal is, one would be able to pursue licensure (centered mainly around proper training, safety, and upkeep - as well as applicable laws) through the US government (or perhaps state governments) to legally obtain military-grade hardware. Terrorist factions (who operate almost entirely outside of the law) have no need to pursue licensure... nothing is stopping them from getting illegal weapons (like they do now) that would not stop them under my system. For example, almost no gun-related crime is committed with legally owned, and carried firearms. Almost all gun crime is committed by illegally owned firearms. Restricting gun ownership rights would not decrease the number of illegal guns in circulation. Similarly, expanding legal options for attaining military-grade firearms does not effect ones ability to obtain the product illegal. It's illegal now, to obtain a fighter jet without my proposed licensure - that would not change.

In other words, if they would be able to get this hardware under my ideal system, nothing is stopping them from getting it now.

A large segment of the IRAs weapons and funding came in America. They had a huge dry up after 9/11. I wonder why.

The best I've seen mustered is home made mortars. If they could buy actual mortars legally in America, that would probably change, no?

[Alyakia]

Then the solution is to create an effective police force.

Citizens as their own local constabulary? Sounds great to me.

When I think of citizens all gathering arms, looking out for themselves because the police won't, I think of places with Somalia.

[Der Teutoniker]

The best I've seen mustered is home made mortars. If they could buy actual mortars legally in America, that would probably change, no?

I am not able to gauge that probability. You mean they would effectively pay for people here in America take all of the training, safety, and legal instruction, get licensed, by the product, and then risk shipping large military-grade weaponry across the seas? I can make no guarantee as to how much legally (yet illegal) obtained military hardware would go to the IRA. Out of curiosity, what percentage of the guns the IRA received was legally purchased, licensed, and owned (immediately prior to being illegally shipped?) If the answer is "few to none" or simply "none" then very little should realistically change.

Alternatively, part of the reason I support allowing citizens expanded rights for owning military hardware is so that they can fight, should they need to, to determine how they are governed. Is this not exactly what the IRA is doing?

[Zonolia]

Assuming this is for USA...I don't see why "ban guns" for 65 votes...they can't ban guns that's going against
1. The friggin Bill of Rights
2. Isn't that one of the reason we pwned Britain several hundred years ago? To not only have independence but to have the right to own a gun...and dont start the "Oh the state will protect you" A big reason we have the Right to Bear Arms is based on the fact, "If the government is ever to rise up to a tyranny the people have the weapons to arm themselves to reform the nation back into a fit democracy" More or less we have the right as a "watertight" if you will to prevent extreme dictatorships from forming...

So yes, I dont care how as long as we can own them.

[Der Teutoniker]

When I think of citizens all gathering arms, looking out for themselves because the police won't, I think of places with Somalia.

The continent of Africa? I don't think of other continents when I think of Americans (specifically in their own communities.)

Additionally... we are still pretty much nothing like Somalia, but false equivalencies for the win, right?

[Alyakia]

The best I've seen mustered is home made mortars. If they could buy actual mortars legally in America, that would probably change, no?

I am not able to gauge that probability. You mean they would effectively pay for people here in America take all of the training, safety, and legal instruction, get licensed, by the product, and then risk shipping large military-grade weaponry across the seas? I can make no guarantee as to how much legally (yet illegal) obtained military hardware would go to the IRA. Out of curiosity, what percentage of the guns the IRA received was legally purchased, licensed, and owned (immediately prior to being illegally shipped?) If the answer is "few to none" or simply "none" then very little should realistically change.

Alternatively, part of the reason I support allowing citizens expanded rights for owning military hardware is so that they can fight, should they need to, to determine how they are governed. Is this not exactly what the IRA is doing?

They already risked shipping small weaponary accross the seas.

Not entirely sure. I could try and find out, but.

Depends on what your viewpoint is.

[Alyakia]

When I think of citizens all gathering arms, looking out for themselves because the police won't, I think of places with Somalia.

The continent of Africa? I don't think of other continents when I think of Americans (specifically in their own communities.)

Additionally... we are still pretty much nothing like Somalia, but false equivalencies for the win, right?

They're both the result of police failing to do (what should be) their jobs.

[Alyakia]

Assuming this is for USA...I don't see why "ban guns" for 65 votes...they can't ban guns that's going against
1. The friggin Bill of Rights
2. Isn't that one of the reason we pwned Britain several hundred years ago? To not only have independence but to have the right to own a gun...and dont start the "Oh the state will protect you" A big reason we have the Right to Bear Arms is based on the fact, "If the government is ever to rise up to a tyranny the people have the weapons to arm themselves to reform the nation back into a fit democracy" More or less we have the right as a "watertight" if you will to prevent extreme dictatorships from forming...

So yes, I dont care how as long as we can own them.

2. No. No it isn't. (Ask France.)

[Greater Cabinda]

Assuming this is for USA...I don't see why "ban guns" for 65 votes...they can't ban guns that's going against
1. The friggin Bill of Rights
2. Isn't that one of the reason we pwned Britain several hundred years ago? To not only have independence but to have the right to own a gun...and dont start the "Oh the state will protect you" A big reason we have the Right to Bear Arms is based on the fact, "If the government is ever to rise up to a tyranny the people have the weapons to arm themselves to reform the nation back into a fit democracy" More or less we have the right as a "watertight" if you will to prevent extreme dictatorships from forming...

So yes, I dont care how as long as we can own them.

2. No. No it isn't. (Ask France.)

2. That, and if someone actually has the manpower and resources to establish an effective totalitarian dictatorship in America, I don't think disorganized local militias are going to be able to stop it from happening.

[The Parkus Empire]

It's absurd to depend upon the police to protect you. It's also absurd to depend upon them for justice, sometimes.

Then the solution is to create an effective police force.

One that will be everywhere 24/7 and will always bring people to justice in accordance to one's own conscience? Impossible.

[Der Teutoniker]

2. That, and if someone actually has the manpower and resources to establish an effective totalitarian dictatorship in America, I don't think disorganized local militias are going to be able to stop it from happening.

Then you don't understand how easy it is to govern people against their will. Remember how Great Britain, the first power in the world was easily able to crush the semi-organized New Worlders back in 1776?

Despite a much larger, better trained, better equipped, generally better led military force, they were unable to maintain their control. If 1/3 of the country rose up against the government, shit would get real serious, real fast. For starters, it is unlikely that the government will simply eliminate 1/3 of the population (likely alienating the rest) secondly, such a war would be unbelievably costly, as every militiaman would stop producing goods, or effort that ultimately help the government.

Military-grade hardware would simply help us keep a bit more of that edge.

[Der Teutoniker]

They're both the result of police failing to do (what should be) their jobs.

Government-less Somalia doesn't have police. So no one is failing to do their job. What is, or is not their job, and their successful completion of that job or not, in this case, is entirely subjective to you.

[Alyakia]

2. That, and if someone actually has the manpower and resources to establish an effective totalitarian dictatorship in America, I don't think disorganized local militias are going to be able to stop it from happening.

Then you don't understand how easy it is to govern people against their will. Remember how Great Britain, the first power in the world was easily able to crush the semi-organized New Worlders back in 1776?

Despite a much larger, better trained, better equipped, generally better led military force, they were unable to maintain their control. If 1/3 of the country rose up against the government, shit would get real serious, real fast. For starters, it is unlikely that the government will simply eliminate 1/3 of the population (likely alienating the rest) secondly, such a war would be unbelievably costly, as every militiaman would stop producing goods, or effort that ultimately help the government.

Military-grade hardware would simply help us keep a bit more of that edge.

The semi-organized New Worlders (who were on the other side of the world during a time when getting there would have taken weeks/months) back in 1776 had extensive military support from France, another great power. Between the American revolution and Irish revolution, as far as I know, every other insurrection has been crushed.

[Der Teutoniker]

They already risked shipping small weaponary accross the seas.

Not entirely sure. I could try and find out, but.

Depends on what your viewpoint is.

Small weapons that are readily available on the black market, and that can be quite easily disassembled, for undercover shipment across seas where it can be easily reassembled.

You figure out how to smuggle that working tank into IRA hands, and show me that most guns the IRA got from America were legally owned, and possessed until the moment they shipped, and then we can have a discussion on the ramifications of legally purchased American tanks ending up in IRA hands.

As for the last point, self-determination should be in the hands of those strong enough to seize it. How can you know if you are strong enough without waging war against powers that control you that you don't want to have control over you? Being just another sheep in the flock is a sin against yourself. There is nothing wrong with liking your government - there is something wrong with disliking it, and not taking the most extreme reasonable measures to change what you do not like.

[The Parkus Empire]

When I think of citizens all gathering arms, looking out for themselves because the police won't, I think of places with Somalia.

When I think of efficient police and the people not having guns, I think of places like North Korea.

Do you see how stupid that sounds?

[Der Teutoniker]

The semi-organized New Worlders (who were on the other side of the world during a time when getting there would have taken weeks/months) back in 1776 had extensive military support from France, another great power. Between the American revolution and Irish revolution, as far as I know, every other insurrection has been crushed.

Then you don't know enough. We would have won with, or without France's help, simply because GB could not sit there, and win a war in our homes. Yes, GB was half a world away - and they had the resources to transport any war material they would need to the New World.

You underestimate the power of the individual - which likely means you underestimate the power you could have if you seized that power. I am sorry for your children.

[Alyakia]

The semi-organized New Worlders (who were on the other side of the world during a time when getting there would have taken weeks/months) back in 1776 had extensive military support from France, another great power. Between the American revolution and Irish revolution, as far as I know, every other insurrection has been crushed.

Then you don't know enough. We would have won with, or without France's help, simply because GB could not sit there, and win a war in our homes. Yes, GB was half a world away - and they had the resources to transport any war material they would need to the New World.

You underestimate the power of the individual - which likely means you underestimate the power you could have if you seized that power. I am sorry for your children.

You might have, but you cannot deny that French help played a major part.

Ask the Boers about that.

[The Parkus Empire]

Then you don't understand how easy it is to govern people against their will. Remember how Great Britain, the first power in the world was easily able to crush the semi-organized New Worlders back in 1776?

Despite a much larger, better trained, better equipped, generally better led military force, they were unable to maintain their control. If 1/3 of the country rose up against the government, shit would get real serious, real fast. For starters, it is unlikely that the government will simply eliminate 1/3 of the population (likely alienating the rest) secondly, such a war would be unbelievably costly, as every militiaman would stop producing goods, or effort that ultimately help the government.

Military-grade hardware would simply help us keep a bit more of that edge.

The semi-organized New Worlders (who were on the other side of the world during a time when getting there would have taken weeks/months) back in 1776 had extensive military support from France, another great power. Between the American revolution and Irish revolution, as far as I know, every other insurrection has been crushed.

What is this I don't even. The French Revolution followed on the heels of the American revolution. The Texan revolution. There have been numerous successful revolutions in between. Do some research. Read a little history, for fuck's sake.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... rebellions

[Alyakia]

When I think of citizens all gathering arms, looking out for themselves because the police won't, I think of places with Somalia.

When I think of efficient police and the people not having guns, I think of places like North Korea.

Do you see how stupid that sounds?

Yet, somehow, this manages to be the most nail-digging post.

[Alyakia]

The semi-organized New Worlders (who were on the other side of the world during a time when getting there would have taken weeks/months) back in 1776 had extensive military support from France, another great power. Between the American revolution and Irish revolution, as far as I know, every other insurrection has been crushed.

What is this I don't even. The French Revolution followed on the heels of the American revolution. The Texan revolution. There have been numerous successful revolutions in between. Do some research. Read a little history, for fuck's sake.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... rebellions

The French revolution followed, that doesn't have anything to do with French support for the American revolution.

5 rebellions against the British empire that ended in independence between 1783-1918. Please.

[The Parkus Empire]

What is this I don't even. The French Revolution followed on the heels of the American revolution. The Texan revolution. There have been numerous successful revolutions in between. Do some research. Read a little history, for fuck's sake.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... rebellions

The French revolution followed, that doesn't have anything to do with French support for the American revolution.

5 rebellions against the British empire that ended in independence between 1783-1918. Please.

You didn't specify insurrections against the British, and five is a pretty damn good number.