Question for Anti-Trump Democrats

[dingdao]

That's fine and I agree that it's a fair point to make when a government removes the ability of civilians to defend themselves.

However, now we get into the details... The US government only allows citizens to arm themselves with small arms. Compared to all the arsenal the US government and other governments, these small arms are equivalent to basically nothing. Civilians have no chance against a government with the current rules so, in fact, the US government is already banning weapons that can help citizens effectively defend themselves. Let me repeat that... In fact, THE US GOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY STRIPPED THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS TO EFFECTIVELY DEFEND THEMSELVES..


If you want to make a case that citizens can EFFECTIVELY defend themselves from a government, and I do mean EFFECTIVELY, then the second amendment as it is interpreted to only allow smalls arms is a failure.

Wait a minute... He has a point.
When the 2nd amendment was written, the rifle was the most effective weapon around. So, how about anti-tank missiles? You want to be able to stop that M1 from knocking down your compound in Texas, don't you?

 

[suncowiam]

Wait a minute... He has a point.
When the 2nd amendment was written, the rifle was the most effective weapon around. So, how about anti-tank missiles? You want to be able to stop that M1 from knocking down your compound in Texas, don't you?

Your point was defense from a government, was it not? So it's not what I want. It's the reality of what you need to defend against a modern government. Stay with the conversation.

So... What do you need to EFFECTIVELY defend against a modern government? Only guns? Would that be an honest answer?

 

[Altfish]

So you are blaming Trump because your country sucks?

No, I'm blaming Trump's controllers and acolytes for the state our country is in.

 

[Altfish]

So then, put this issue to a re-do vote of the people, the majority position regarding Brexit may have changed over the course of the last two years. ...

I think we've got to that now but neither party seem to think it is the way forward

 

[BSM1]

You have not made a correlation of that freedom to the possession of guns.

You assume so because of the revolutionary war. You assume that the second amendment GUARANTEES this freedom by allowing citizens to own small arms. However, you have not proven the correlation of owning guns will enable this freedom. We have seen cases where government organizations pretty much defeat cult groups even when they were armed with small arms. And this was usually just done by the local police, swat, and/or the FBI. There has been no case where a modern cult can defeat a government organization.

It's not about winning, it's about taking a stand. It's about saying no to anyone trying to deny you your rights.

Sentiments and viewpoints aside, I image that a lot of folks who flaunt their open carry to make a statement, especially at political rallies while all decked out in their 'tacticool' gear, would **** themselves in terror if/when it actually came time to engage in armed combat. For most it's simply LARP/cosplay level posturing and fantasy.

These are not the majority of gun owners; and I think you're just trying to reassure yourself. If you really believe this, why don't you challenge them face to face?

Not upset, just disappointed. I'm learning to lower my optimism and expectations when it comes to my fellow countrymen, though.


I would've forgotten she existed if it weren't for your persistent reminiscence.

Then that's on you...

 

[Father Heathen]

It's not about winning, it's about taking a stand. It's about saying no to anyone trying to deny you your rights.

Outside of guns, when has Republicans ever cared about rights?

These are not the majority of gun owners;

The majority of gun owners also don't fantasize about going Rambo against the police/military, either. It's funny, though; the right worships law enforcement and military, yet threatens to murder them if gun legislation doesn't go their way.

I think you're just trying to reassure yourself.

...of what?

If you really believe this, why don't you challenge them face to face?

Because I'm a grown adult and this isn't middle school?

 

[Revoltingest]

Sentiments and viewpoints aside, I image that a lot of folks who flaunt their open carry to make a statement, especially at political rallies while all decked out in their 'tacticool' gear, would **** themselves in terror if/when it actually came time to engage in armed combat. For most it's simply LARP/cosplay level posturing and fantasy.

Open carry is considered gauche by the vast majority of gun nuts.

 

[tytlyf]

This is mainly directed at democrats who have the anti-Trump, "anyone but Trump", "any Blue will do" mentality.

Replacing Trump with any of these establishment, moderate, centrist type Democrats running for 2020 (like Kamala Harris, Robert O'Rourke, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and I would even add Elizabeth Warren) what exactly is it do you think will change?

The rich will continue to get richer. The poor will continue to get poorer. People will still live paycheck to paycheck. Minimum wage will still be well below a living wage. Millions will still be medically under-insured or not insured. Thousands a year will continue to die because they cannot afford their medications. Oil companies will continue to drill and pollute. Our homeless population will continue to increase. Our criminal justice system will continue to create criminals for profit. We will still wage regime change wars. Money will still control politicians. And on and on.

What will change voting (D) instead of (R)? Well for one, middle class policies vs capitalist policies.
Voting republican continues the wealth gap. Capitalist policies encourages this. Also, it's wise to not vote for the party that denies the science behind climate change. That's a capitalist position.
What party wants to raise the MW? What party wants clean air and water? What party doesn't like pre-existing conditions?

The parties aren't even close to being the same. The GOP manipulates it's base for republican votes.

 

[dingdao]

Your point was defense from a government, was it not? So it's not what I want. It's the reality of what you need to defend against a modern government. Stay with the conversation.

So... What do you need to EFFECTIVELY defend against a modern government? Only guns? Would that be an honest answer?

Actually I was being sarcastic.
To give you a straight answer: You're doomed. No one has the money or manpower to go up against a military that is [what?] twice the size of the third largest standing army and significantly more technologically advanced then its rival.

 

[sun rise]

I make no apologies on how I feel about living in this great country.

On this one point, I agree with you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually I was being sarcastic.
To give you a straight answer: You're doomed. No one has the money or manpower to go up against a military that is [what?] twice the size of the third largest standing army and significantly more technologically advanced then its rival.

I've covered this before with anti-gun types.
They envision a revolution to be like a typical foreign war because that's where our military
has the overwhelming advantage. But revolutions are much more complicated because
one wouldn't even arise without having a goodly portion of soldiers being sympathetic.
Add to this there being no clear target, ie, the revolutionaries live among the friendlies.

 

[suncowiam]

Actually I was being sarcastic.
To give you a straight answer: You're doomed. No one has the money or manpower to go up against a military that is [what?] twice the size of the third largest standing army and significantly more technologically advanced then its rival.

Ok... So what's the point of the second amendment in modern times? How is it helping citizens?

 

[suncowiam]

It's not about winning, it's about taking a stand. It's about saying no to anyone trying to deny you your rights.


These are not the majority of gun owners; and I think you're just trying to reassure yourself. If you really believe this, why don't you challenge them face to face?



Then that's on you...

There are needs of the individual versus the needs of society.

Obviously, we do not allow individuals to do everything capable. Some actions are too harmful to society.

You are entitled to stand up for a right you believe everyone is entitled to. I think that's fair.

However, I think I can objectively say that there are conditions that should be met for individuals to properly own, operate and store their guns. Otherwise, it presents more of a danger to society.

I wouldn't mind gun ownership if I didn't think it was more harmful to society. And statistically, it does present itself in such a way. Couldn't you understand the other side's perspective?

 

[BSM1]

There are needs of the individual versus the needs of society.

Obviously, we do not allow individuals to do everything capable. Some actions are too harmful to society.

You are entitled to stand up for a right you believe everyone is entitled to. I think that's fair.

However, I think I can objectively say that there are conditions that should be met for individuals to properly own, operate and store their guns. Otherwise, it presents more of a danger to society.

I wouldn't mind gun ownership if I didn't think it was more harmful to society. And statistically, it does present itself in such a way. Couldn't you understand the other side's perspective?

Why would I even want to understand the other side. I see this as a right that not up for debate. Plus, the business I have been in for the last thirty years has shown me that everyday we are facing an actual or potential threat from a criminal element that will not hesitate in harming or actually killing you or your family. I also know that help is never going to be there in time, so it is up to everyone of us to be responsible for our own safety. The proper use of a firearm (without hesitation) in a life or death situation maybe the determining factor in who walks away from the encounter. Having said this, I have advised more than a few people to not have a firearm if they having any doubt about taking the life another person.

 

[dingdao]

I've covered this before with anti-gun types.
They envision a revolution to be like a typical foreign war because that's where our military
has the overwhelming advantage. But revolutions are much more complicated because
one wouldn't even arise without having a goodly portion of soldiers being sympathetic.
Add to this there being no clear target, ie, the revolutionaries live among the friendlies.

Not only would a modern revolution look more like the overthrow of the British Monarchy (skirmishes everywhere including in homes) then the American Civil War (clearly de-marked territories), control of the revolutionary forces will certainly be usurped from the hands of the originating group (see the French revolution).

 

[Revoltingest]

Not only would a modern revolution look more like the overthrow of the British Monarchy (skirmishes everywhere including in homes) then the American Civil War (clearly de-marked territories), control of the revolutionary forces will certainly be usurped from the hands of the originating group (see the French revolution).

The trick here is not to imagine how an armed revolution can fail.
That's easy to do by creating scenarios with that result.
Instead, think of how one might succeed. It's possible.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about guarantees...just possibilities.

 

[dingdao]

The trick here is not to imagine how an armed revolution can fail.
That's easy to do by creating scenarios with that result.
Instead, think of how one might succeed. It's possible.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about guarantees...just possibilities.

You're way too optimistic about mass killings. No one is better off after a revolution. The resources expended fighting each other would be better spent paying off the debt. In a conflict, someone is going to go Scorched Earth. And then there is the time away from the farms, so that even the fertile ground won't be in production. Then with the women fighting and dying, bringing the population back with 2 - 5 children each, takes much longer then with a lack of men, who could have an almost unlimited number of children each. The problem shows up in succeeding generations. This effect showed up after WWII in Europe when single women sought out married men while they were fertile.
I'm out

 

[Revoltingest]

You're way too optimistic about mass killings. No one is better off after a revolution.

No optimism.
I'd expect a revolution to be a terrible thing, with no guarantee of success.

 

[ecco]

Replacing Trump ... what exactly is it do you think will change?

Re-establishment of Iran Nuke Deal
Re-establishment of Paris Accord
Regaining respect of world leaders
A shot at installing a liberal Supreme Court judge
...for starters.

 

[ecco]

Nixon actually did end both the war & the draft.

Nixon initiated the War on Drugs and classified (LSD), marijuana , and peyote as Schedule I drugs.

Google result for: how much has the war on drugs cost

Since 1971, the war on drugs has cost the United States an estimated $1 trillion. In 2015, the federal government spent an estimated $9.2 million every day to incarcerate people charged with drug-related offenses—that's more than $3.3 billion annually.​

how much did Vietnam war cost

The Department of Defense (DOD) reports that the United States spent about $168 billion (worth around $950 billion in 2011 dollars) in the entire war including $111 billion on military operations (1965 – 1972) and $28.5 billion on economic and military aid to Saigon regime (1953 – 1975).Jan 22, 2014​