Elementary School Shooting: Newtown, Connecticut. 28 confirmed dead, 18 were children

[wawawowee]

Exactly my point. If stricter gun laws keep even one less shooting like this from happening, that's a success. 

No it's not. 

This line of reasoning is completely ridiculous.  There's a trade off with everything.

The problem is that those advocating very strict gun control don't see the value of an armed population to begin with.  Therefore, there's really no trade off with stricter gun control. Strict gun control seems very rational. On the other hand, if you see the right for individuals to own weapons as preventing the government from having a monopoly on weapons then strict gun control is has a lot of trade offs associated with it. 

 

[ricky409]

No it's not. 

This line of reasoning is completely ridiculous. 

lolwut

Prevent a shooting isn't a success?

Jagsfan.gif

 

[thenoguy]

No it's not. 

This line of reasoning is completely ridiculous.  There's a trade off with everything.

The problem is that those advocating very strict gun control don't see the value of an armed population to begin with.  Therefore, there's really no trade off with stricter gun control. 

What is the value of an armed population then? I'm pretty sure I saw you posting about the ability to resist a tryannical government, but you can't honestly believe that citizens armed with semi-automatics stand any chance against the US government, not to mention how unlikely any sort of armed revolution in America is to begin with.

 

[rashi]

I already said it's not going to solve the problem entirely, so what you need to answer is: How is it going to hurt? I can't see any way in which stricter regulations on gun purchases makes us less safe. 

And don't make the comparison to illegal drugs leading to more crime, because the drug trade exists because people love getting high. Impossible to compare an addictive cycle to something like guns.

Ok, essentially we are making laws just to make to say "Ok, we did something."? People buy bullets because they like to hunt and go to the gun range, so for their convenience

 

[thenoguy]

People's desire to hunt and visit gun ranges should not be a higher priority than human life. If you don't agree with that I don't know what to say.

 

[wawawowee]

What is the value of an armed population then? I'm pretty sure I saw you posting about the ability to resist a tryannical government, but you can't honestly believe that citizens armed with semi-automatics stand any chance against the US government, not to mention how unlikely an sort of armed revolution in America is to begin with.

I didn't post about an ability to resist a tyrannical government earlier. 

If you think that citizens don't stand a chance against the US government then you probably don't 't know much about military history. It's safe to say that as long as the US  grants individuals citizens the right to own guns and citizens use that right, it won't even be worth it for anyone/group  thinking about pulling a move. That scenario will just be way to messy. Victory in war is not always about winning outright or having the biggest weapons. Many have won via stalemates and wars of attrition. If 200 million Americans are armed and the government decides to turn into a Scientology (

) dictatorship tomorrow, will they go out and really try to subdue 200MM people? It's just not realistic from the get go. 

It's a deterrent to full on tyranny in the first place. 

Armed revolution is unlikely but I don't believe that was the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was created in order to deter armed revolution via the maintenance of a republican system of government. So long as the people have a choice or believe that they have a choice, they rather vote than revolt.  Revolutions are messy and at the end of the day, it's better to be miserable  and fight via the ballot box for 50 years then get your head blown off within 5 minutes and not be much of anything. 

My parents came from a "country/ union" (the USSR)  with very strict gun laws yet they are extremely pro 2nd amendment. They've seen what a government who has a monopoly on weapons and power can do. They can do whatever the hell they want and you can't do anything about it. Plain and simple. 

Remove the weapons from the populace and it just becomes that much easier to institute tyranny. Will it happen 100%? Over the long run. Yes. That's what history has shown. 

The point is that it's dangerous for any government to have a monopoly on as powerful a tool as the gun. Sooner or later that power will lead to a tyrannical urge because it will simply be too easy to subjugate the population. Just like water finds he path of least resistance, so do most people aka governments. And making people do what you want at the point of a gun is a pretty nice path with very little resistance. 

 

[thenoguy]

I didn't post about an ability to resist a tyrranical government. 

If you think that citizens don't stand a chance against the US government then you probably don't 't know much about military history. It's safe to say that as long as the US  grants individuals citizens the right to own guns and citizens use that right, it won't even be worth it for anyone even thinking about pulling a move. That scenario will just be way to messy. 

It's a deterrent to full on tyranny in the first place. 

Armed revolution is unlikely but I don't believe that was the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was created in order to deter armed revolution via the maintenance of a republican system of government. So long as the people have a choice or believe that they have a choice, they rather vote than revolt.  Revolutions are messy and at the end of the day, it's better to be miserable  and fight via the ballot box for 50 years then get your head blown off within 5 minutes and not be much of anything. 

My parents came from a "country/ union" (the USSR)  with very strict gun laws yet they are extremely pro 2nd amendment. They've seen what a government who has a monopoly on weapons and power can do. They can do whatever the hell they want and you can't do anything about it. Plain and simple. 

Remove the weapons from the populace and it just becomes that much easier to institute tyranny. Will it happen 100%? Over the long run. Yes. That's what history has shown. 

Military history? When in history did any nation have the arms capacities of the United States today? If you don't think the US army is fully capably of annihilating any group entirely, you aren't living in the real world. America's current struggles in the Middle East should absolutely not be taken as a sign-post for our military power. This is part of the problem with the second amendment in general; attempting to apply 18th century frameworks to modern day. 

Removing weapons from the populace "100%" leads to tyranny? This seems like a fallacy derived from your own families experiences at the hands of the USSR, a regime which maintained power entirely through violent purges. Has Japan become a tyrannical state since they instituted stricter gun laws? Has Australia? History has shown, if anything, the stupidity of attempting to draw broad lessons from another countries experiences. 

 

[ksteezy]

You guys are high off some good **** to think the right to bare arms is some sort of safety blanket....which on of ya dudes got hunter drone chillin in your garage?...ya some delusional *****

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

You guys are high off some good **** to think the right to bare arms is some sort of safety blanket....which on of ya dudes got hunter drone chillin in your garage?...ya some delusional *****

right.

Whatever guns you got the Gov't got a MUCH better version that would lay your *** down quick, fast and in a hurry.

 

[wawawowee]

Military history? When in history did any nation have the arms capacities of the United States today? If you don't think the US army is fully capably of annihilating any group entirely, you aren't living in the real world. America's current struggles in the Middle East should absolutely not be taken as a sign-post for our military power. This is part of the problem with the second amendment in general; attempting to apply 18th century frameworks to modern day. 

Removing weapons from the populace "100%" leads to tyranny? This seems like a fallacy derived from your own families experiences at the hands of the USSR, a regime which maintained power entirely through violent purges. Has Japan become a tyrannical state since they instituted stricter gun laws? Has Australia? History has shown, if anything, the stupidity of attempting to draw broad lessons from another countries experiences. 

Listen. It's very simple. 

When the majority of the populace is armed, killing them all is just way too messy. In fact, it's virtually impossible without ******g yourself over as well. 

What do you think a potentially tyrannical US government would do? Go out and obliterate most of America? What would they be left with then? And who would carry out those orders? And at what point would those who might have began to carry out those orders start to question things? After 10 MM dead? After 50MM? After the first nuke? I mean it just gets real messy.

Messy enough where it's not a feasible option. It's a deterrent. Just like posting posting a sign on your door, "have gun , will shoot", will deter a thief even if he knows his gun is more powerful than yours. He'll just target something easier. 

All political institutions lead to tyranny. Show me one political institution over a prolonged period of time that hasn't? Force becomes the default because that's the easiest way to govern. We can argue about what to do and go back and forth or I can just put a gun to your head and force you to do it. What's easier? 

Your argument is basically to trust the government with a monopoly on guns. That's deranged.  

 

[wawawowee]

You guys are high off some good **** to think the right to bare arms is some sort of safety blanket....which on of ya dudes got hunter drone chillin in your garage?...ya some delusional *****

This isn't COD.

Wars aren't that simple. There are a lot of politics involved and an entire host of constraints. 

Plenty of powerful militaries have fallen or been fought to a stalemate by much more poorly equipped adversaries. 

We have so many example of that just in the last 50 years.

It's not about how big or powerful those weapons are but about a monopoly on that power. Once you give away that right then you're at the mercy of other individuals. 

 

[thenoguy]

Nothing is that simple! Your belief that the government is somehow out to get us is equally simplistic! Any scenario that is predicated on a "tyrannical US government" is far too over-simplified to even consider in the first place. Shows complete disregard for the multitude of factors shaping American policy.

 

[ksteezy]

This isn't COD.

Wars aren't that simple. There are a lot of politics involved and an entire host of constraints. 

Plenty of powerful militaries have fallen or been fought to a stalemate by much more poorly equipped adversaries. 

We have so many example of that just in the last 50 years.

Right...for sure the government will follow rules of engagement when it's own people have threaten to overthrow it....what the hell are you smoking...according to you killing 20 babies could be part of some government conspiracy to keep us in fear and down, if you are right, is think twice before I try to stand up against such government, which is by far more powerful, better trained and has resources and technology my 12-gauge cant even begin to compare...

 

[thepointgod]

I can't tell if Wawawowee is trolling or not

 

[wawawowee]

Right...for sure the government will follow rules of engagement when it's own people have threaten to overthrow it....what the hell are you smoking...according to you killing 20 babies could be part of some government conspiracy to keep us in fear and down, if you are right, is think twice before I try to stand up against such government, which is by far more powerful, better trained and has resources and technology my 12-gauge cant even begin to compare...

Government is made up of people. It's not a monolithic being. 

When things get messy, people tend to break/disagree/ etc.

That's what an armed populace does. It doesn't guarantee a non tyrannical government but it deters one from form forming. It makes it that much harder. 

Again, having bigger weapons is only one aspect of warfare. If they were the end all be all then all we'd have is nuclear weapons and no standing army. Have a problem? Just use the bigger weapon and nuke them, right? It doesn't work that way though. 

 

[10508 cardo jr ln]

Not sure if posted...

 

[thenoguy]

Government is made up of people. It's not a monolithic being. 

When things get messy, people tend to break/disagree/ etc.

That's what an armed populace does. It doesn't guarantee a non tyrannical government but it deters one from form forming. It makes it that much harder. 

Again, having bigger weapons is only one aspect of warfare. If they were the end all be all then all we'd have is nuclear weapons and no standing army. Have a problem? Just use the bigger weapon and nuke them, right? It doesn't work that way though. 

This! This is exactly why being afraid of some tyrannical government attempting to exert its power of us in the first place is ridiculous.

 

[gry60]

What is the value of an armed population then? I'm pretty sure I saw you posting about the ability to resist a tryannical government, but you can't honestly believe that citizens armed with semi-automatics stand any chance against the US government, not to mention how unlikely an sort of armed revolution in America is to begin with.

I didn't post about an ability to resist a tyrannical government earlier. 

If you think that citizens don't stand a chance against the US government then you probably don't 't know much about military history. It's safe to say that as long as the US  grants individuals citizens the right to own guns and citizens use that right, it won't even be worth it for anyone/group  thinking about pulling a move. That scenario will just be way to messy. Victory in war is not always about winning outright or having the biggest weapons. Many have won via stalemates and wars of attrition. If 200 million Americans are armed and the government decides to turn into a Scientology lol ) dictatorship tomorrow, will they go out and really try to subdue 200MM people? It's just not realistic from the get go. 
It's a deterrent to full on tyranny in the first place. 

Armed revolution is unlikely but I don't believe that was the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was created in order to deter armed revolution via the maintenance of a republican system of government. So long as the people have a choice or believe that they have a choice, they rather vote than revolt.  Revolutions are messy and at the end of the day, it's better to be miserable  and fight via the ballot box for 50 years then get your head blown off within 5 minutes and not be much of anything. 

My parents came from a "country/ union" (the USSR)  with very strict gun laws yet they are extremely pro 2nd amendment. They've seen what a government who has a monopoly on weapons and power can do. They can do whatever the hell they want and you can't do anything about it. Plain and simple. 

Remove the weapons from the populace and it just becomes that much easier to institute tyranny. Will it happen 100%? Over the long run. Yes. That's what history has shown. 

The point is that it's dangerous for any government to have a monopoly on as powerful a tool as the gun. Sooner or later that power will lead to a tyrannical urge because it will simply be too easy to subjugate the population. Just like water finds he path of least resistance, so do most people aka governments. And making people do what you want at the point of a gun is a pretty nice path with very little resistance. 

Nope.

What history has shown is that the will of the people to not be subjected to tyranny is always more powerful than the amount of weapons in circulation among the people. The French revolution showed it in the past, and today we saw it in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Chechnya, and many other places where you have active rebellions.

Moreover, all it takes for a leader to turn a democracy into a dictatorship is to be backed by a majority of the armed forces, the legislative, and the judiciary when the shift happens (and there are numerous examples that display the same pattern). The fact that the population is armed (or not) doesn't even matter because they don't even have access to the heavy weaponry that the military does

 

[wawawowee]

I can't tell if Wawawowee is trolling or not

Not trolling but some of you seem to think on child-like levels. 

 

[Betonblck]

Government is made up of people. It's not a monolithic being. 
When things get messy, people tend to break/disagree/ etc.


That's what an armed populace does. It doesn't guarantee a non tyrannical government but it deters one from form forming. It makes it that much harder. 

Again, having bigger weapons is only one aspect of warfare. If they were the end all be all then all we'd have is nuclear weapons and no standing army. Have a problem? Just use the bigger weapon and nuke them, right? It doesn't work that way though. 

This! This is exactly why being afraid of some tyrannical government attempting to exert its power of us in the first place is ridiculous.

Man, I think Wawawowee has been smoking that ooowee

 

[thepointgod]

Not trolling but some of you seem to think on child-like levels. 

I don't even think the right-wing gun nuts have your back on this one. You sound like an 80-year old conspiracy theorist.

 

[david bowman]

There are small nuggets of truth in much of what he's saying. I just don't think it's a persuasive enough argument to not have strict gun control. Mainly because of the era we are in

 

[rellireloaded]

Not sure if posted...

Keep it outlandish, to keep you tuned in, to keep that view revenue up.  I don't think we can get any lower.

 

[flacobey]

that video is interesting

 

[frostythepoptart]

it's a lot easier for Gadafi to be in power when the citizens can't fire back. It's not about the average u.s. citizen going to war with the entire U.S. army,

yeah the big bad U.S. can just run through whoever they want right so it spointless? tell that to vietnam

Stricter gun laws saving one life sounds like an awesome thing because who doesn't want to save a life.

But you can save lives by forcing everyone to drive a car that can't go over 70 (thats about the max speed limit anyway, banning alcohol so teens don't die, or how would you feel if your cell phone completely locked down when you entered a car, and wasn't functional until 5 minutes after turning it off. we could save lives by keeping people focused on the road but at what trade off to freedom)