A gun control convo with my liberal friend....

Great post! Great stratagy too, this:

If you ask them what they think you should do.

 

Almost had that with FDR, (in a way) up until him the tradition was to step down after two terms. Yes he still would have to be elected, but had he lived, would he have been elected again (and again?)

 

If a person chose to die rather than defend themselves, I might consider them misguided and foolish, but that is after all their choice.

It was this second statement voiced by the previous poster that the MIL said she would not even use lethal force to defend her children that I personally find loathsome.

 

Justin,
Im glad you have brought the liberal side to the discussion
(believe it or not, I am typing this response in the admirals club in the austin airport.)

Being a conservative (from north Dallas) I usually only see one side in these forums.


So....... What is your thoughts on your presidents proposals?

Are you for them as many others with that political side are?

Looking at your posts here, are you for an AWB?

Just curious.... Not meaning to offend in any way, just curious on how a liberal gun owner views. This situation.

 

I totally agree.

If someone decides to say that they will not defend themselves is one thing, too refuse to defend your FAMILY is another. Sorry for ranting like this the "Still same answer" made me mad. I remember reading a story where a group of pacifists were captured by jihadists. The fathers stood by and prayedwhile their 8 and 10 year old daughters and their wives were raped and hacked into pieces. Then the jihadists shot the fathers(they hardly deserve the term).
A man who will not defend his family is not a man. He is the most vile, despicable creature on earth.

 

Here, let me chime in on that, since by the historical definition of the word, I am liberal. (well, libertarian, but conservatives say "if you aren't with us you're against us"... and lib is lib)


You asked the question what a "liberal" gun owner thinks about the AWB?
I think its a pile of garbage, and is about as ridiculous as denying a person the rights to marry someone they love based on YOUR particular religious views, in this country that prides itself on personal freedom and separation of church and state....especially since those rights have monetary impact to those denied them, and are governed by the state...when your #1 and only evidence to support your objections is a religious tome named the Bible.....Yea, separation of church and state.....right. Conservatives HATE the idea of Sharia law, yet its very clear they LOVE the idea of imposing their christian version of it on 100% of the American population. The AWB makes as much sense as saying that since I voted to legalize gay marriage, I'm really interested in having a legal bestial relationship with my labrador, and am happy that I can now pursue marrying my dog.

I find it the AWB about as ridiculous, intellectually lazy, and ignorant of history, as the thought that if we don't immediately bow our heads and worship a certain and specific god that YOU approve of (most likely yours) in a way you approve of, that we will all descend into heathenism and will lose all sense of morals and ethics.

I find the AWB as stupid, unpatriotic, ineffective, and criminal.... as an American president who starts a war in Iraq against the will of the American people, then undermines the war effort with rampant cronyism and mismanagement of resources, wastes taxpayer dollars padding their daddies buddies' pockets, and display gross incompetence.

I find that arguments to support the assault weapons ban are about as well thought out, all encompassing of everyone's opinions, supported by data, and unbiased, as arguments in support of each of the above common conservative views, arguments, or conservative-supported policies.

Hopefully that will help.

 

JosieWales: your example is of someone who actually failed to defend and chose otherwise. That's different from the MIL example where she was merely speculating on a hypothetical, never having been in that situation.

I try hard not to call someone "insane" or put a lot of stock in what people *say* they'd do in a purely hypothetical situation. Its very easy to say "I'd shoot them" or "I couldnt" when its a conversation. It's very different in reality and no one really knows how theyd act unless they've been there.

Given this fact, it hardly seems worth vilifying someone - let alone an entire ideology as one person did in this thread - based on what someone thinks they might do "IF..."

It's pretty reckless and vile to accuse someone of a behavior and then condemn them for it when they've never actually had the misfortune to exhibit that behavior.

I feel bad for people who think it's okay to do that.

 

__________________

The fourth amendment?
True.
But OTOH the tenth amendment has been shredded beyond recognition.

And who is to stand up for #s 4 & 10?
How many battles can I fight? Especially since personal weapons are so ineffective against a big bad government?:banghead:

In a sense. In another sense, they're all there to protect the others.
Some might point out the second hasn't really been used ....yet.
I am not hoping that will be necessary.
It will be the Last Stand against tyranny if it becomes necessary.
(Ask General Custer how well "last stands" work out.)

 

Bullets haven't won a single war in recorded history. People win wars, bullets are just a tool to help get the job done. The more effective the weapon, and the better trained the individual, the more chance they have of success. However, it's the resolve of the fighter that counts much more than the weapon he holds.

 

What are your facts to support this statement?

 

I keep hearing that the modern military machine will roll over it's citizens if a battle were to ensue. First off how many of the military would not follow such an order to fire on their own? If the govt turned tyrannical, how many would desert and in doing so take as much with them as possible providing these weapons to the "rebels"? Yea all speculation just like we cannot fight the modern military. But then who is to say the tyranny will come in the form of the federal govt??

Prime example; Battle of Athens Tenn. 1949

Nough said.

 

^^^^This.

I seriously doubt our country would ever degenerate into this, though welcome to the new face of anarchy should that happen.

I think it is hilarious that some believe an armed citizenry couldn't stand up to the military might our government possesses. While someone here seemed to easily dismiss what already has occurred in multiple places around the globe in recent history, I don't believe there is any example of that ever happening in a country where so many possessed personal defense weapons and so many other resources. I agree that on face value a bolt-action rifle does not equal an Apache helicopter, though it is disingenuous to purport that is how the conflict would occur.

Take my opinion for what it's worth, as we as a citizenry are pretty complacent and lazy. I do believe if push came to shove that could and would change. The ability to disrupt commerce and daily important civil operations are immense and would not require direct military confrontation at all. I don't believe any other populace on the face of the Earth has possessed the capability to implement these kinds of impediments to the governing structure on the basis of weapons the common populace possesses ever. While semi-automatic rifles would be desirable in this capacity, garden variety hunting rifles and pistols would still be formidable weapons in an armed populace.

I understand that a "head on" war with an organized military would be doomed with anything less than that as an opposition, though don't see that as the likely scenario. Day to day dissidence would grind any power to a halt, especially one that could effectively provide armed resistance covertly at every turn.

 

There is no way that a bunch of citizens with ARs could stop the military from going anywhere it wants to. It could make it expensive in terms of lives and dollars but it could not stop them and it would be a waste to even try. And that does not matter. There would be no thousands of miles of ocean separating the government from the front lines. The military would own wherever the were in strength and nothing else. They could not put troops in every branch of the federal government in America and they could not guard every official and his family. Frankly a lot of soldiers would just desert and some of them would roll a grenade into a tent on their way out. Reporters would be fair game as well. It would be a war of sabotage and assassination and they could not win that.

 

If you are going to lose, you can at least make the enemy win less.

 

Giving a good visual presentation through words sometimes works. I've converted two people using this tactic that were dead set against so called "assault weapons". I guess it may depend on how well you can talk to people and how persuasive you can be in the end.

It also doesn't hurt to understand when you've got a lost cause. If you're talking to Dianne Feinstein, you might as well forget it because people like this aren't going to have their minds changed by logic or reasonable discussion.

Unfortunately my own grandparents are the same way and want "common sense" legislation to protect people. They don't get that some laws won't ACTUALLY change anything when it comes to bad guys who don't care about the legality of things.

 

If the government does go tyrannical and we did have to fight. We might not win but at least we won't be here for what happens next. I would rather die fighting even if I don't stand a chance than live to help or give anything to that government. Also it's easier for troops to confiscate guns if they don't have to think about the Americans they're killing and the oath they're breaking doing it.

 

All insurgency fighting is about making it "too costly".

Americans would have a much lower tolerance for killing Americans on US soil than they do for killing foreigners on foreign soil. The GIs operating that military equipment would have a much lower tolerance for it, too.

 

The liberal perspective? No, my perspective is simply objective. The vast majority with the "overthrow the government" fantasy are simply choosing to believe what they wish rather than look at things as they are. It's called backwards thinking, coming to a conclusion first and then filtering out any data that fails to support it. I would probably agree that this practice is common among those who self identify as right wing but it certainly occurs with many left wingers as well.

First, he is no more my president than he is yours. And the fact is i actually supported Gary Johnson.

So please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that i'm a liberal from this thread? Because i don't go along with a fantasy commonly held among those on the right i'm by default liberal?

Well, let me preface my saying that i own well over a dozen "assault weapons" in addition to 50 plus AR mags, 35 ak74 mags, 40 ak47 mags, etc, etc. After the recent school shooting i did find myself re-examining my positions and was mostly worried that my position was based on selfish preferences rather than what is right. After lots of thinking, listening and reading different perspectives and then discussions with people on both sides of the issue i eventually reaffirmed my opposition to an AWB. I do concede that there are valid arguments on both sides and it is not black and white like most wish to pretend. But in the end i believe the reasons against an AWB significantly outweigh those for it. To summarize briefly, "Assault rifles" are used in a very small minority of crimes and they are certainly advantageous for home defense. They could also prove highly valuable in a natural or man made catastrophe. Most importantly, school and mass shootings and the like could be performed just as easily, if not more so, with a handgun. Overthrowing a tyrannical government is simply not a valid reason to oppose an AWB.

 

Thank you J-Bar, I am glad you found it useful.

 

Is there an example in recent history of it happening that citizens with personal defense weapons stood up to and defeated the largest, most powerful military in the world?

 

I keep hearing all this talk about about the supposedly invincible nature that technology affords our military. Do you have any idea the support structure that is necessary to retain that technological advantage? And that the more advanced the technology becomes, the more support is necessary to maintain it? I don't think people are computing that into their apocalypse scenerios.

I was a FLIR tech on F-18's in the Marine Corps just a few years ago. To maintain those birds it takes an ungodly amount of manpower and resources, all of it "soft" and unprotected. If we didn't have an absolutely secure rear area in the wars of late, if those isurgents had been transported here and suddenly there were 80 million of them... there's no way we could have maintained the structure necessary to perform our jobs. Our fuel has to be produced and trucked in from somewhere, our electronic components manufactured and shipped to us, our food all other materials likewise. All of these are vulnerable targets and there is simply no way to protect them all.

Now, God forbid, if it came to that, most of us and our families lived out in town. If said insurgents were in the US, they wouldn't attack us in our uparmored humvees or while we are manning 240's behind hesco barriers. It would happen in OUR homes and while WE were at supermarkets and restaurants.

So to summarize, even if all of the military obeyed such an order to disarm American citizens (which I doubt), and even if the U.S. government and economy itself didn't collapse as a result of the insuing insurgency, I would loath and feel absolute pity for those members of our military (which is most) who work in support roles. Even in the 21st Century, due to the vulnerability of the massive support structure necessary to maintain our vaunted military technology, the Second Amendment is still applicable for its original purpose. IMO.

 

What is "a gun control convo"?

 

If by "Battle of Athen Tenn. 1949" you actually mean the one in 1946 there was o involvement by the US Military. Several hundred (Maybe as many as 2000) vets managed to overthrow 55 Sheriff's deputies.

This is not an informative analog to "overthrowing a tyrannical Federal Government"

 

The same tactics that are currently being employed to fight against further gun legislation could be used just as well against other constitutional amendments. Also, attacks against the fourth and various other amendments have been going on long before the current wave of efforts against the second so i don't buy the "i can't because i'm too busy with the 2nd" argument.

What is your "thresh hold of time to use the second"? It makes no sense to say the we need the second to protect the others but then say its only time to act when the second is infringed. If, as you yourself have stated, they are all there to protect each other then that is only more reason to be just as active in defense of all as the in defense of the second.

One common argument is that the second limits government by its mere presence of a threat against government over reach. That has obviously proved false.

 

The best answer I can find is;

From another point of view, we still vote for our representatives. This is probably still our best bet; however, the people must be better educated and we need to stop voting for the Snake Oil Salemen who promise us largesse from the public treasuries, we need to go back to basic fundamentals.
We will be our salvation or or destruction.
There are a thousand ways to become extinct and one way to survive.
I don't know if we are wise enough to find that one way. To expect any one man to be in a position to be salvation is too much. I never said I could walk on water.
We're in this together.