School Shootings

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Re: School Shootings

Postby Aseahawkfan » Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:37 pm

RiverDog wrote:They already have enough tools to tyrannize the population, have had for a hundred years or more. No matter what happens to the 2nd Amendment, we're toast if we ever allow ourselves to be taken over by a tyrannical government (some would argue that we already have). I don't accept that reasoning as a justification for maintaining the 2nd. I'm more likely to be persuaded by a "Red Dawn" scenario than I am combatting the federal government. Our best defense against a tyrannical government is to fight it from within.

But I do agree with you regarding removing all knowledge of weaponry when you remove guns, and that IMO would be part of a justification for keeping the 2nd intact. In WW2, one advantage we had over the Germans and Japanese is that most of our boys were already familiar with weapons. As in every situation, knowledge is power.


How do you fight it from within if you are not armed? A disarmed people is without real power. All power from government comes from force. You literally do not have a government of the people if they have no capacity to use force if it becomes necessary. They have not had it for a 100 years. The weapons they possessed that long ago were easily defeated by well-trained civilians. They have had the means for extreme tyranny for about 30 to 40 years now and this generation of Americans is already dumb enough to be giving up their rights in the face of arms that will destroy them. Either people believe that there will never again be a tyrant in control of America or the world or they are thinking only of the safety for their generation without thinking of the best way to teach future people.

People like to make fun of Skynet. I'm not worried about Skynet. I'm more worried about human beings in control of a robotic warforce used against a population disarmed not only physically, but mentally as well. There is a certain attitude when you know how to use a weapon and are taught the tools of war that will be removed from the general population. These mass shootings are already a major example of the sheep-like nature of human beings accepting being nothing more than a herd for someone to kill. These same humans are looking to others for their defense rather than themselves. They are asking the government to employ the police and military class in our society to disarm the 99.99999999% of responsible gun owning Americans due to the fear caused by a minuscule number of mass shooters.

You wonder why the whack jobs think these are false flag operations, but it's the results they are seeing as to why they think that way. If a group of people wanted to disarm the American population and could do so by having a small number of mass shooters cause such a panic that a large enough percentage of Americans are willing to give up their right to bear arms primarily included in The Bill of Rights to balance military/police power between the civilian population and the government, then mission success. There are a large and growing number of people willing to remove the right to bear arms as a balance against oppressive military power from the 99.999999% of responsible gun owning Americans.

We have 1000s to tens of thousands of AR15 and assault-style weapons in this nation, yet we have a handful abused by certain individuals and we're supposed to give up all gun rights and start this lie about the 2nd Amendment not being a check and balance on government power? Really? Next I'll hear Freedom of Speech was just intended for telling jokes and insulting your neighbor.

There are very real reasons why the civilian population should be able to own military-style weapons. At the very least the weapons of the standard infantryman other than hunting or just because they feel like it. If the government ever becomes tyrannical again, the people will expected to take them down. You cannot do that if you are disarmed. I keep hearing but what about Martin Luther King and Ghandi? I say to that what about the Khmer Rouge and Communist China and Russia and Saddam Hussein and Hitler and the deaths squads in El Salvador and Cuba and the endless list of tyrants where peaceful protest and resistance did not work because the tyrants were willing to violently suppress the population even if they had to murder a bunch of them and their families.

The reality is that we are a people that should always be taught to use our vote and all possible bureaucratic avenues for resistance first, but if they should fail we have been given the right to bear arms to maintain a strong militia mindset if it should be necessary to violently oppose a tyrant inside or outside this nation. I can't believe you Riverdog are agreeable to the idea of removing military-style weapons from the civilian population due to a minuscule number of irresponsible, irrational, and evil killers. No matter how you paint this is less than one one-millionth of the population forcing a change for millions of responsible gun owners that responsible exercise their second amendment right.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: School Shootings

Postby RiverDog » Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:47 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:How do you fight it from within if you are not armed?


I was speaking of non violent means. We have a better chance of controlling the government by making sure that our elected officials are responsible to those that put them in office. It means staying informed and not allowing ourselves to be controlled by the media, to view the news from multiple sources and come to our own conclusions.

It wouldn't make any difference if every citizen was armed with and M16. They don't work well against tanks, and as the Syrian rebels found out, they don't work well against poison gas.

There is a certain attitude when you know how to use a weapon and are taught the tools of war that will be removed from the general population.


Agreed. It's a good justification for maintaining the 2nd. But you don't need an assault weapon to maintain that attitude and have a basic knowledge of weaponry.

We have 1000s to tens of thousands of AR15 and assault-style weapons in this nation, yet we have a handful abused by certain individuals and we're supposed to give up all gun rights and start this lie about the 2nd Amendment not being a check and balance on government power?


I don't believe that it's an effective check and balance, but I do agree that it would be very problematic to round up every assault weapon in the country and toss them into a burn pile. It's a similar problem that they had during prohibition and IMO would lead to more gangs and underworld crime just as it did in prohibition.

I can't believe you Riverdog are agreeable to the idea of removing military-style weapons from the civilian population due to a minuscule number of irresponsible, irrational, and evil killers. No matter how you paint this is less than one one-millionth of the population forcing a change for millions of responsible gun owners that responsible exercise their second amendment right.


What I have said is that I would be agreeable with banning all military style weaponry if I could be assured that the gun control crowd would stop there. But when I look at our past history from 1963 through the present day and see polls where there are already 20% of the American population that want to repeal the 2nd, it makes me hesitate.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 8326
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: School Shootings

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:32 pm

RiverDog wrote:I was speaking of non violent means. We have a better chance of controlling the government by making sure that our elected officials are responsible to those that put them in office. It means staying informed and not allowing ourselves to be controlled by the media, to view the news from multiple sources and come to our own conclusions.


Non-violent means is not effective against all tyrants or even the majority. I listed for you numerous and will do so again from recent memory: Saddam Hussein, Iran's Ayatollah, The Taliban, Russian Communism and now Dictatorship, Chinese Communism, The Khmer Rouge, the psychopathic warlords in Africa.

It wouldn't make any difference if every citizen was armed with and M16. They don't work well against tanks, and as the Syrian rebels found out, they don't work well against poison gas.


You're thinking short-term. They will work when the civilian population with M-16s cuts off tank refueling depots, ammunition replenishment, and the people having to leave to eat and take a rest. Armies of men are still useful because you can use them in insurgencies to cut off the supply of machines which are far harder to keep active. I guarantee you that 300 million people armed with M-16s would make a huge difference against a 500,000 person military.

You want to have that argument, we can have it. I'll break down how an insurgency force 300 million strong with M-16s can outlast a 500,000 person army with tanks, planes, and the like. That in fact an armed and prepared population is one of the greatest defenses and checks and balances on government in history. It is exactly why historically leaders of nations have taken very extensive steps to disarm populations they plan to conquer and create elite military and police classes to control civilian populations. Even in Germany Hitler made it a point to disarm Jews to make them easier to round up and kill. In America we made sure to disarm Native and African populations to make them easier to control.

A disarmed population is far easier to tyrannize and I would argue that they are in a state of tyranny as soon as they give up their weapons because they no longer have the capacity to use force to disarm their government. They have literally put themselves at the mercy of their government police and military.

Agreed. It's a good justification for maintaining the 2nd. But you don't need an assault weapon to maintain that attitude and have a basic knowledge of weaponry.


I believe you do. The weapons of the soldier are different than a hunting rifle or pistol. It's why so many people want them gone. They are designed for a purpose and that purpose is one the civilian population should have access to.

I don't believe that it's an effective check and balance


Why? You really believe only the government should have access to military and police use of force? And that the civilian population should be what....disarmed and at their mercy? At what point would you consider yourself tyrannized? How much would they have to raise your taxes to feel tyrannized? When they do and you don't have that M-16 to join with your neighbors, what would you do then? March like all these protesters? Vote? What if they ignore your vote, where do you draw the line? When you do need it? If they remove your right to have it and you did it to yourself, then what do you do?

but I do agree that it would be very problematic to round up every assault weapon in the country and toss them into a burn pile. It's a similar problem that they had during prohibition and IMO would lead to more gangs and underworld crime just as it did in prohibition.


In nearly every nation where they disarmed the population crime has risen. All disarming the population does is set them up to be prey for criminals and aggressive governments. Why do you think so many liberal organizations want gun control? Just because? It is far easier to push a socialist agenda on a disarmed population. They use the power of legislation to push it and then the police and military to enforce it against a disarmed population that can no longer resist them. It's called mob tyranny. Our Founders were against it which is why they intended a Republic based on individual rights and even bothered to add an Amendment like the 2nd Amendment.

You seem to have some knowledge of the Constitution? Why exactly do you think they included an Amendment like the 2nd Amendment and why so high on the list? Do you ever ask yourself that question? It seems not many do. I know I did, then started to research why would the Founders of a nation based on liberty ensconce in the Constitution an amendment that militarizes the people of that nation? If it were just for national defense, they could have formed a standing army like Great Britain. But for some reason they decided to make it an individual right in a document they clearly made to put checks and balances on government power. Why would they make arming citizens such an important part of that if it was not a quality check and balance?

What I have said is that I would be agreeable with banning all military style weaponry if I could be assured that the gun control crowd would stop there. But when I look at our past history from 1963 through the present day and see polls where there are already 20% of the American population that want to repeal the 2nd, it makes me hesitate.


As I said, you are not a free people if you are not armed people capable of forcibly unseating your government. The Founders knew this. Anyone that understands that all government is based on force understands this. Only dumbass socialists and liberals believe that a disarmed people is still a free people because their size has been brainwashed to believe that only the government is capable of military or police action. Don't buy into it. An armed population that can defend themselves violently is the best defense from governmental tyranny that at people can be provided. Does it guarantee victory against a tyrant or ensure a perfectly free state? No, nothing does. Does it at least ensure that if it should come to it you as a people have the means to violently dissolve your government amongst the population so you can at least fight if it comes to it? Yes, it does.

And that is all the Constitution is meant to guarantee is that the means for liberty is there be it the freedom to verbally oppose your government, assemble to talk about opposing your government, and if necessary take up arms to oppose your government. None of them guaranteed to provide a positive result, but all of them provided so that the American people as a whole might be able to defend their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness on all fronts as needed. I would not give up any of those rights due to fear caused by a handful of very evil people any more than I would give up my car due to irresponsible drivers which kill or maim far more people each year. Don't buy into the hype and BS pushed by the anti-second amendment lobby.

And citing other nations as examples of reduced gun violence due to the numbers is like removing cars and saying we reduced vehicular deaths. It's a no brainer that removing something from society is going to cause a reduction in that type of violence, but still doesn't resolve the underlying issues that cause the violence or trouble in the first place. Fight the socialists that want to take our liberty, RD. Fight them to the last. They have an agenda they raise up every time these mass shootings happen without ever bringing up the fact that mass shootings are exceedingly rare, rarer than car accidents, drug overdoses, and other crap they don't seem to be much against.

I'll leave it there. I can't make the point any stronger than I have. I feel like I live in the end times of America where people have forgotten what keeps them free and are willingly giving up their rights and idea of America because it seems like it is ok to do so, like we can all let our guard down because tryanny and evil have been banished from the world forever. I don't personally that is the case, but it shows how much people go to sleep when the bread and circuses are plentiful and entertaining. They no longer want to maintain the vigilance, values, and hard work that has made this nation extraordinary. All I know for certain is the weakness that so many are willing to teach their children and future generations makes it far easier for me to empower my children to excel past them and maintain strength while society teaches weakness, acquiescence to the masses, and insouciance.
Last edited by Aseahawkfan on Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: School Shootings

Postby burrrton » Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:37 pm

The weapons of the soldier are different than a hunting rifle or pistol. It's why so many people want them gone. They are designed for a purpose and that purpose is one the civilian population should have access to.


Are you talking about the AR-15? If not, which are you talking about that are currently legal and what makes them uniquely dangerous compared to a bog-standard semi-auto?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: School Shootings

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:13 pm

burrrton wrote:Are you talking about the AR-15? If not, which are you talking about that are currently legal and what makes them uniquely dangerous compared to a bog-standard semi-auto?


Semi-auto is military style. If they remove one, they will remove them all at some point. Semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines could all be classified as military style be the AR-15, M-16, or FN Fal or any of the assault weapons. Semi-auto with a high capacity magazine is the standard of the soldier. High capacity so you don't have to reload in a prolonged firefight and semi-auto to fire at need in an accurate and controlled manner that dose not deplete ammunition uselessly.

That's why I don't care about the argument of automatic weapons with the civilian population. Automatic weapons have their uses, but they are not the standard for military excellence as full automatic mode is only useful in very specific circumstances, otherwise just a complete waste of ammunition and can damage your weapon. Even 3 round burst mode is not the military standard for shooters. The military standard for a good rifleman is steady, consistent use of a military-style, semiautomatic rifle. That has proven most effective in mass warfare between human personnel and insurgency fights. That's the right civilian population should look to maintain.

The 2nd Amendment should not at all be discussed as an amendment for hunting or standard home protection. It should be made clear that the American people desire to maintain their right of violent revolution should it come to it. And that means they should be able to own and maintain training in the standard arm of the infantrymen: the military assault style rifle. I believe it is all the civilian population as a whole would need to launch an insurgency sufficient to retake their government should it come to it.

Though in the face of increasing automation and force multiplication, it may be too little too late. When you can send drones or robots operated by single users capable of killing on a mass scale with little to no personal risk to the governmental agency doing so, we may have a serious problem. Robotic force multipliers are becoming more and more common. That will ultimately be our undoing. That's why I told Riverdog the tools for extreme tyranny have only existed for 30 or 40 years. Before even a tyrant had to use a human military to operate the machines of war or control an area, one that had to be supplied with food and could be killed or deprived. It required a huge amount of manpower to prosecute a war.

These past few wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are showing that manpower requirements are lowering. We are starting to automate the machines of war more and more. Drone assassinations are becoming increasingly common. We're starting to see robotic bombers and likely robotic tanks soon as well as all types of smart bombs that can be deployed by fewer and fewer people. I don't fear AI so much as a malign human intelligence in control of an automated military force with little need of food or even a habitable environment. One of things that holds back nuclear, chemical, or biological attack is that it endangers your troops as well as the people it intends to kill and can make a place uninhabitable. Once you rely on robots, they don't care about biological or chemical attacks and may even be build to operate in nuclear war zones. Once you have a robotic army, it opens up warfare options that did not previously exist. It's a very real concern for future generations.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: School Shootings

Postby burrrton » Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:43 am

Semi-auto is military style.


Statements like this are why people who are familiar with firearms don't listen to people who aren't. Honestly.

[edit]

And no, the Second Amendment is not intended to be a Get Out of Jail Free Card for people who decide to take up arms against their country. Jesus. That's not a discussion I can have now, though. I'll see if I have the energy tomorrow... C'mon, guys.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: School Shootings

Postby RiverDog » Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:42 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:Robotic force multipliers are becoming more and more common. That will ultimately be our undoing. That's why I told Riverdog the tools for extreme tyranny have only existed for 30 or 40 years. Before even a tyrant had to use a human military to operate the machines of war or control an area, one that had to be supplied with food and could be killed or deprived. It required a huge amount of manpower to prosecute a war.

These past few wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are showing that manpower requirements are lowering. We are starting to automate the machines of war more and more. Drone assassinations are becoming increasingly common. We're starting to see robotic bombers and likely robotic tanks soon as well as all types of smart bombs that can be deployed by fewer and fewer people. I don't fear AI so much as a malign human intelligence in control of an automated military force with little need of food or even a habitable environment. One of things that holds back nuclear, chemical, or biological attack is that it endangers your troops as well as the people it intends to kill and can make a place uninhabitable. Once you rely on robots, they don't care about biological or chemical attacks and may even be build to operate in nuclear war zones. Once you have a robotic army, it opens up warfare options that did not previously exist. It's a very real concern for future generations.


You're right, our military has reduced the number of "boots on the ground" and piloted aircraft has gradually been going to more stand off type weaponry like drones and cruise missiles. But you're overlooking a huge logistical and support "army" required to manage those weapons, along with the defense industry that produces and maintains them, referred to as the military-industrial complex, still in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Those people are just as critical to war operations as the guy behind the joystick.

You bring up a lot of good points regarding the 2nd Amendment, but I'm just not buying your "skynet" rationale.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 8326
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Previous

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron