To be fair, it is in the best interests of Government (any government) to disarm the public. The less resistance the populace can muster, the better. Sure, it's Machiavellian (and Orwellian), but whatever. The trouble is that Government should not be acting in its own best interest, it should be acting in our best interest, so any regulations have to pass a sort of, "Is it what the Public wants/needs?" test (at least superficially) before anyone wants to be seen championing it.
oh my god you're a fucking idiot if you think an armed public has any chance in hell against the US Military as it is now
There's a difference between
and increasing gun control laws. I mean, you should never hand a toddler a sharpened knife, but that's not an argument for banning knives.[DOUBLEPOST=1367605096][/DOUBLEPOST]
You're a fucking idiot. Full stop.
Because simple majority rule is often wrong. Otherwise we'd still have segregation, for example. It's a republic, not a democracy.
But that's a separate argument. Pat's point was that Congress should always consider whether or not the public wants a law, rather than just doing what they want. I was pointing out that 91% of the country supports background checks, so that question is moot.
While this is very true, it doesn't make the OPPRESSIONDICTATORSHIPTYRANNY!!!11one argument any less false. As long as the latter is a major public talking point, it's worth pointing out that it's wrong.
Well, I only agree with Patr to a point, and one thing that does have to be taken into account is that the leaders need to legislate without regard to the emotional swelling of the moment. What were your thoughts when the majority of the US was (and still continues to be) in favor of repealing obamacare?
I disagree. The 2nd amendment is the final guarantor of all the others. It is absolutely imperative that the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
I'll agree that decisions should not be overly driven by emotions. As for "Obamacare," I believe that it should be repealed if that's what people want. If it has the votes in Congress then it should go. That's the whole point of Congress. As long as the laws they pass don't violate the constitution, it should be majority rule.
Well, the polling on the issue doesn't match the votes in the senate, which has been the stumbling block. The House has repeatedly tried to repeal it, but will of the masses be damned, the democrat controlled upper house won't be moved. I'm in favor of repeal, but I also don't believe that every legislative vote must be required to go along with national polls. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is what it means to be a republic.
I think you misconstrued what I said. Describing the government as "oppressive" and "tyrannical" or "dictatorial" in this case is demonstrably false. The "public needs/wants" condition that Patr mentioned has been completely satisfied, whether that in and of itself is sufficient to push forward with legislation or not.
When I talked about majority rule, I meant votes in Congress.
Maybe I did misconstrue, it's actually pretty hectic here at work. But my point is that, you can't wait until a government IS tyrannical to assert the right to keep and bear arms - you have to assert it to prevent that state.
I assert that the current public interest in increasing background checks is a knee-jerk emotional reaction to recent events for which background checks would have had no preventative effect, and thus can be tactfully ignored until it cools off.
How does asserting that right keep the US government from assuming that state, especially today? And keep in mind, I'm arguing against your "no gun control ever" stance, not for the "guns banned everywhere" stance.
Well, it's not a binary, "if 1 then 0." It's a deterrent, not a perfect failsafe. It gets back to the idea that government should fear the people and not vice versa. An unarmed populace is much more trivial to oppress than an armed one.
To somewhat clarify this point, it is my fervent opinion that our government's job is to look out for us, aid us, and in general act (and ENact) in a manner which consistently benefits a majority* of the population. However there are those who propose legislation that "does something" without actually accomplishing anything. Creating overly burdensome bureaucratic hurdles and registration fees (in the interest of Public Safety, of course) technically do not prohibit the purchase of personal arms, but they would effectively sidestep the 2nd amendment. That's why the language of the amendment says "infringed," and not "prohibited."
Which does not make the country a police state, or even heading for one. The actions of a police state, or a state heading for one, are going to reveal themselves in the suppression of free speech and free assembly, citizen disenfranchisement, the removal of due process for "undesirables", and so on and so forth long before there's any kind of forceful affirmation of the descent into tyranny. You know, things that are not magically protected by the 2nd amendment.
It's been a long day for me (dealing with a death in the family), but I need to make a comment on the first point you made. Look at the Boston Bomber survivor, they wanted to not read him the Miranda list, he is a naturalized US citizen. That's just a quick example of desire to remove due process. Public opinion was treat him as a combatant, not a good idea, what would be the next step of broadening the definition of combatant, it's a very slippery slope.
I'm sure there was pressure from the Insurance Industry to treat them as combatants, also. After all, many insurance policies don't have to pay out if the loss is determined to be an "Act of War." Would have been a great way to weasel out of making any of those life/property payments.
Damn, I wish I'd thought of that. No open carry + concealed carry license. I keep forgetting Texas doesn't allow open carry (mostly because I think it should).
Amen brother!
Really? That's quite a leap, isn't it?
if you don't think the NRA amasses power through terrorizing the public and spreading fear, you're not paying attention
There is a huge difference in propaganda of the word and propaganda of the act.
Charlie considers all gun owners to be murderers or murderers waiting for the opportunity so you should even waste your breath.
I strongly disagree with your characterization, and though I admit they use some scare-mongering tactics, that is far cry from terrorism. Pull your head out of your ass.
One of us does not realize that the other being sarcastic, but I'm genuinely not sure which it is.
