Crazy gun laws

[BSM1]

If you really believe you need to fear your own government that much, your country is already a failure.

Now you get it.

 

[leibowde84]

Our gun laws have been called 'Crazy'. I grok that Europeans who live with very strict gun control and have small territories might not feel comfortable with our gun laws, but letting citizens (not felons) have guns is not crazy. Forcing citizens to register all guns is a mistake, because our govt. already has too much information about each one of us. In this digital age that information should be a secret. Our greatest weapons against terrorism and massacres should not be gun control, which really does not control most crime; but it should be good domestic policies and equal opportunity. By registering all weapons we tell the next would-be-dictator whom to kill first. Remember when the communists rolled across China they killed everyone that they thought was smart or educated, and since they had no database they selected everyone who had glasses. When Stalin took over in Russia he killed everyone who could intelligently oppose him, even his own friends and supporters. These are examples of dictators shrewdly using information about anyone who can oppose them. That information must never be public in the USA, and the right to bear arms would in spirit be undermined by requiring the registration of weapons.

My eyes got blurry trying to read this rant, but I realized that it's merely an issue where both of us are getting different information (I hope). Can you provide some evidence to back up these claims?

 

[Brickjectivity]

My eyes got blurry trying to read this rant, but I realized that it's merely an issue where both of us are getting different information (I hope). Can you provide some evidence to back up these claims?

Let me correct something I said during my rant. The event with the glasses happened with the Khmer Rouge communist party in Cambodia, not China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

That my government has too much information about each citizen I will leave for you to look into. Its obvious to me. Also consider what happened with our Senator McCarthy and his blacklisting fiasco. What if he had had all kinds of superdata on citizens? Consider how he was eventually stopped was by two people refusing to cooperate, but in these times and with our current combination of policies he would have been able to simply disappear anyone he had accused of communism. He could have sent them to Gitmo, and he could have found every last communist in the country.

Stalin was a genocidal murderer. He had Sergei Kerov killed, and then he instituted a cull of all of those idealists he had previously claimed to be one of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin Now consider if Stalin had access to what my government has access to?

What happens when our next 'Senator McCarthy' appears? We ought to have every right to: 1. fully encrypted communications 2. privacy from the government's spying 3. guns, missile launchers, knives, scientific knowledge, political knowledge and anything necessary to secure the right to free speech.

 

[metis]

When one of them is kicking in my patio at 2am or bursting through it with a crow bar or a brick..... Should I shoot him or challenge him to a sing off....????

You could read him your posts and bore him into a coma.

 

[leibowde84]

Let me correct something I said during my rant. The event with the glasses happened with the Khmer Rouge communist party in Cambodia, not China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

That my government has too much information about each citizen I will leave for you to look into. Its obvious to me. Also consider what happened with our Senator McCarthy and his blacklisting fiasco. What if he had had all kinds of superdata on citizens? Consider how he was eventually stopped was by two people refusing to cooperate, but in these times and with our current combination of policies he would have been able to simply disappear anyone he had accused of communism. He could have sent them to Gitmo, and he could have found every last communist in the country.

Stalin was a genocidal murderer. He had Sergei Kerov killed, and then he instituted a cull of all of those idealists he had previously claimed to be one of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin Now consider if Stalin had access to what my government has access to?

What happens when our next 'Senator McCarthy' appears? We ought to have every right to: 1. fully encrypted communications 2. privacy from the government's spying 3. guns, missile launchers, knives, scientific knowledge, political knowledge and anything necessary to secure the right to free speech.

Is it fair to dwell on the past? None of the leaders today, though they certainly are flawed, had anything to do with the events you mentioned. Almost all Americans did not in fact. How are those things relevant?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is it fair to dwell on the past? None of the leaders today, though they certainly are flawed, had anything to do with the events you mentioned. Almost all Americans did not in fact. How are those things relevant?

They happen in cycles. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. If for example you take a look at current events in Russia, you will see the govt. clamping down upon any free speech. It has access to all citizenry data, perfect access to all internet data and is successfully using that to stop free speech. The Russians forgot the past.

 

[dawny0826]

I sleep with a knife by my side when Father Heathen leaves for work in the morning. Why?

Because, I don't yet own a gun and I know that fellow Americans are capable of breaking into my home and threatening my personal safety and that of my children.

We will be purchasing a gun once our son is born and I can commit to going to the gun range and obtaining my concealed weapons permit. Once I have a gun, I will not hesitate to utilize it to protect myself and my family.

I'm tired of feeling vulnerable - as a woman - as a mother. I am thankful for the right to own and conceal a gun and I don't care who does or doesn't agree with me.

Overall, I agree with these sentiments on gun control (from: https://www.facebook.com/LPGeorgia/?fref=photo)

 

[leibowde84]

They happen in cycles. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. If for example you take a look at current events in Russia, you will see the govt. clamping down upon any free speech. It has access to all citizenry data, perfect access to all internet data and is successfully using that to stop free speech. The Russians forgot the past.

But, this is a distraction. We are discussing this current government, not past or future ones. You have yet to provide your reasoning for how your rant is applicable to this current government, while still being so vastly different than the ones you mentioned.

 

[Thief]

Netflix blocked the vid .
ooops

 

[Brickjectivity]

But, this is a distraction. We are discussing this current government, not past or future ones. You have yet to provide your reasoning for how your rant is applicable to this current government, while still being so vastly different than the ones you mentioned.

But I gave you an example (McCarthy) of our government getting out of control, and I've pointed out that our government no longer has the restrictions which stopped McCarthy. I've shown our government homeland security has become similar in its structure to that of Russia and Cambodia during regimes when they oppressed speech. I never claimed that our governments were exactly the same, and how could any two governments be? No, you are trying to deny historical experience, so you can live in some sort of theoretical space. That is not politically reasonable.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The OP says our gun laws are 'Crazy', but what is really crazy is letting the government have our trust like the folks in the UK where almost nobody may get a gun. They aren't crazy, but they have made a mistake. Problem individuals are bound to appear and take a turn in our government and theirs, and we must not allow the government to think of itself as our parent, which it will try to do. All governments have that tendency. I have personally been held at gunpoint by a stranger (a hitch-hiker), but I accept the danger of guns (and other dangerous technologies such as encryption and education) for the sake of securing freedom of speech and other freedoms that governments occasionally forget.

 

[Thief]

it's been awhile.....what was Hitler's take on gun law?
seems it ran parallel to what we have in my state.

 

[Demonslayer]

(and other dangerous technologies such as encryption and education)

Huh?

 

[leibowde84]

But I gave you an example (McCarthy) of our government getting out of control, and I've pointed out that our government no longer has the restrictions which stopped McCarthy. I've shown our government homeland security has become similar in its structure to that of Russia and Cambodia during regimes when they oppressed speech. I never claimed that our governments were exactly the same, and how could any two governments be? No, you are trying to deny historical experience, so you can live in some sort of theoretical space. That is not politically reasonable.

I am merely pointing out the absurdity of blaming current leaders for the actions of past ones.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I am merely pointing out the absurdity of blaming current leaders for the actions of past ones.

I agree that should not be done.

 

[Ultimatum]

They aren't crazy, but they have made a mistake.

Yes, we've made a mistake in not letting our people have guns and thus bringing increased firearm-related deaths per capita.
With religious extremism being a fifth column, why on Earth would I want citizens to have the legal right of carrying a device that discharges a projectile at a very high rate?
Not to mention theft and innocent assault concerns.

Problem individuals are bound to appear and take a turn in our government and theirs, and we must not allow the government to think of itself as our parent, which it will try to do. All governments have that tendency.

Why does the pro-gun lobby suddenly become a sort of edgy individualist anarchist organisation and claim that the Governement scares them?
What on Earth is the problem? It's called a democracy--if the general public don't like it, then they can vote out the cabinet or offer up themselves for candidacy.

Its not like they are going to just run into your houses and shoot you--this is illegal under international law. (duh)

I have personally been held at gunpoint by a stranger (a hitch-hiker).

This is why America is so deep in their own sh**. Its impossible to come out of this situation.
And yet they proclaim that they enjoy their "freedums" but, actually, they live in fear of their government (case in point) and their own citizens.[/QUOTE]

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes, we've made a mistake in not letting our people have guns and thus bringing increased firearm-related deaths per capita.
With religious extremism being a fifth column, why on Earth would I want citizens to have the legal right of carrying a device that discharges a projectile at a very high rate?
Not to mention theft and innocent assault concerns.

In my opinion the UK citizenry should claim the same duty, but I grok that you are all jammed together on an island. I have really wide roads, really big cars and long distances. I can drive for (100 kilometers) in some places without passing a single person. Its not the same.

Trust the citizens not the lords. Trust the poor to care for the poor. We in USA cannot count on other countries to stop our govt. from becoming really oppressive (such as when it passes insane laws like the Patriot Act), and we cannot count on other countries to protect us if our govt. fails under an invasion, or when it starts unnecessary military action. So...what are we supposed to do? You want to suggest that we simply give up any defences and trust that our govt. will behave? It doesn't! It doesn't behave. Give it a few years of unchecked total control of all our information and weapons and it'll invade the UK. You'd make an excellent 51st state.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Trust the citizens not the lords. Trust the poor to care for the poor. We in USA cannot count on other countries to stop our govt. from becoming really oppressive (such as when it passes insane laws like the Patriot Act),

Good thing all those gun-owners were able to stop the Patriot Act from happening, right?

Oh... wait...

and we cannot count on other countries to protect us if our govt. fails under an invasion, or when it starts unnecessary military action. So...what are we supposed to do? You want to suggest that we simply give up any defences and trust that our govt. will behave? It doesn't! It doesn't behave. Give it a few years of unchecked total control of all our information and weapons and it'll invade the UK. You'd make an excellent 51st state.

Personal firearms are no defense against government tyranny. That takes real work and involvement of citizens in government. Guns are a distraction: your rights have steadily eroded while your population watches, but you've still got your gun, so you must be free... right?

With habeas corpus gone and with the value of your vote destroyed by gerrymandering, your gun will be next to useless in effecting political change or protecting your rights against a tyrannical government. If the day ever comes when you need a firearm to defend yourself against "tyranny", you've already lost.

 

[BSM1]

Good thing all those gun-owners were able to stop the Patriot Act from happening, right?

Oh... wait...


Personal firearms are no defense against government tyranny. That takes real work and involvement of citizens in government. Guns are a distraction: your rights have steadily eroded while your population watches, but you've still got your gun, so you must be free... right?

With habeas corpus gone and with the value of your vote destroyed by gerrymandering, your gun will be next to useless in effecting political change or protecting your rights against a tyrannical government. If the day ever comes when you need a firearm to defend yourself against "tyranny", you've already lost.

It's the principle of the thing. Seriously, how would you get rid of firearms already in the hands of those that would do you harm?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Good thing all those gun-owners were able to stop the Patriot Act from happening, right?

Oh... wait...

And non-gun-owners didn't help either. That's also too bad, and so here we are part of a surveillance state that allows tyrannical police who intimidate and steal (sorry I mean confiscate) in places. Ferguson is a small taste of what can happen, and yes it is indicative that personal firearms are a last defence against tyranny when the government fails to govern itself. We in USA are positioned to transition from freedom and free speech into the mere appearance of it, because already we have merely the mere appearance of it in places, an increasingly belligerent and secretive homeland security force that believes it may attempt to tap our thoughts, give us gag orders in secret and confiscate our property on a whim. Go ahead and suggest that the govt. should have a database of all of our guns and see how you improve things. Before the police knock on your door they'll be able to look up whether you've got a gun or not, so they'll know how easy it will be to take away your freedom. Before they confiscate your bank accounts, they'll know who all of your friends and contacts are. Before they falsely accuse protestors of crimes they'll know which accusations will be most believable. Everything is on track to push us through that thin membrane into a russian style state. We've got the surveillance, the false modesty of police commissioners, the citizens fearing each other and the misplaced trust in govt. Why not go ahead and take away one more bit of defense?

Personal firearms are no defense against government tyranny. That takes real work and involvement of citizens in government. Guns are a distraction: your rights have steadily eroded while your population watches, but you've still got your gun, so you must be free... right?

You are making a conversational mistake. By quoting part of a conversation with someone else and not taking into account what I have said before on the subject you have failed to connect with the larger conversation. I never said work and involvement of citizens was not effective or that guns were our defence against tyranny but that guns were a defence.