Topic: Poll for Gun Control Advocates - page 3. (Read 17920 times)

Oh hey I almost forgot, you find those citations for your legal P90 fantasy yet or are you just tossing that down the memory hole?

As for the whiskey rebellion, you can read the Wikipedia article as well as anyone, you are just clearly hoping nobody else does so you can lie about it.  There were multiple acts of lawbreaking and violence as part of the insurrection prior to Washington marching and shooting at a tax inspector and burning down his house down is obviously an act of violence.  


Yeah, great libertarian peaceful protest where you threaten to murder people who disagree with your politics.


Violent retribution against citizens for obeying the law.  How dare you try and stop this, Washington!?


More violent attacks against government agents.



How DARE they shoot back when armed men are surrounding their house and threatening them!  Libertarians certainly oppose that sort of thing!


Dude, you're understanding of this topic is sub-elementary school or you are just lying.  Stop it already.  It was a widespread violent insurrection and the response was proper.  
A police officer isn't "provoking" you when he pulls you offer to enforce the law just because you think your special and the law doesn't apply to you.


No, I don't.  It's really kind of boring discussing this topic with someone who makes up random factoids like this.

inb4 "biased sources"

Your worldview is not based on facts.  In every society that has banned handguns for citizens, violent crime rates have increased.  None have decreased since their ban.

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome

http://rense.com/politics6/britgun.htm

http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constitution/english-warning-to-americans-dont-give-up-your-guns/

Thanks for this, I had no idea about that.

I'm not the one making shit up.  Note that I'm teh one who posted the Wikipedia link that says that there was one possible case of a US soldier being shot, but that can't be confirmed, while there are multiple cases of protestors being shot by US agents.  There is no credible historian of the era that would claim that the protestors provoked the encounter, they agree that the tax collector is responsible for that.  Washington sending in troops was very likely due to receiving a one sided report of the events, along with his tendency to trust officers of his administration over stories of government violence and overreach.

As as for lawbreaking, you commit an average of three felonies per day.  That's just as much an excuse towards action today as it was then.

You've been ignoring me Rarity, and at this point, I view that as a good thing, because it means that what I am about to say will get no response. My refutation of your idiocy will not receive more idiocy. It will simply stand, on it's own.

No, you're right, it won't stop people who want to shoot people from shooting that first time. But it sure as hell will stop the next shot.

Kennesaw, Georgia. Crime is down 50% since the law requiring everyone to have at least one gun in the house was passed.


I have yet to hear anyone explain how blowing up brown people on the other side of the planet and defending poppy fields protects me.

Criminals tend to be stupid people who make bad decisions.  Call that "crazy" if you want but we are left with the fact that it occurs often enough that we can throw out the idea that arming everyone will stop people from shooting. 


And yet once I moved to England I learned that even with comparable rates of crime in the country the fatalities from crime were significantly lower.  National gun control works, and we have concrete examples of that.  We don't have examples of peaceful utopias brought about by giving everyone more weapons.


They maintained order, that is exactly what they were supposed to do.  There will always be some mistakes made by any institution, but they do not make the whole institution flawed as a result.  On the whole our military is made of patriotic heroes who want to do their best to protect us.  It's shameful that you are slandering them this way from the safety of your keyboard while they risk their lives to protect your spoiled existence.  Without our strong American military you and your family would be speaking German or Russian now and there is nothing you could have done to prevent it.  Show some fucking respect.

Pointing a gun at a police officers is crazy in my book.

The national gun control method has been proven to disarm law abiding citizens, NO ONE ELSE.  History has shown that time and time again:

- gun registration which leads to gun confiscation which leads to oppressive government, and in many cases, genocide
- when things go south, police look out for themselves and family first.  there aren't enough police to protect everyone, as shown with riots
- police and military generally do what they are told.  case in point, what happened in new orleans when Katrina hit.

YOU may trust someone else to protect you, but I do not.  You may trust government officials, police, military, what have you, but I do not. 

I'm responsible for me and my family, no one else.

M

Our government officials are also sworn to uphold the constitution.  Shows how far that goes.

M

/sigh... we were doing so well there, and then you lapsed back into terrorism.

It's simple, really. Only an objective threat matters. Because you "feel" threatened doesn't matter one whit, if you're not actually threatened. If you are actually threatened, you are being aggressed against, whether you "feel" threatened or not.

I could care less about the fissionable material. It's the fact that the bomb is primed to explode that is the problem. You are more than welcome to draw first and shoot - always remembering that if it turns out he was reaching for his keys to get into his apartment, you may well find yourself in some hot water.
And no, I am not saying you cannot "defend" your family, but that if you choose to stop him from firing by instead shooting him, you are going to need to be responsible for your actions. I notice that you have not mentioned the one course of action which would handily stop a shooter just out for some target practice - as he has informed everyone of - from shooting until your family is clear: Stepping in front of the rifle. That would cause any responsible shooter to immediately safe his weapon, if not completely put it down. Are you afraid to take risks with your own safety to ensure that of your family's?

Again, only an objective threat matters. And an armed nuclear bomb is an objective threat to all within the range of the device. A holstered weapon is not an objective threat to anyone, much less someone who has a nuke wired to his vitals.


What makes you think it would be on their spare time? If there is a bounty, there will be bounty hunters. And I have already explained that (and why) I believe such trades would be significantly rarer in an AnCap society, and we're powerless to stop them now, regardless, so we're pissing into a fan here anyway.

1) Well, at least I got the robber back, and that what matters to me. A shame about the others. Sucks to be them I guess.

2) A little quick googling does seem to indicate that there is such thing as subjective threat. As well as objective threat. You have a very strong opinion about what a threat is, but that doesn't make it true.

3) It's not my fault that people are afraid of a little fissionable material in my pocket. Why do you get to decide what a threat is. I see what I think is a gang member in a dark alley reaching for his gun, I'm not allowed to draw faster and shoot? I have to wait until he points his weapon at my head before I can shoot?
So what you're saying is that I can't defend my family, not until the park shooter kills one or more of them? Which is a bit late imho. I see where your system is consistent, it's just a dumb system. I have to wait until he does irreversable damage.

4) Again, your opinion. They're safe from my bomb until it goes off and I'm safe from their guns until they shoot me. See, everybodys safe. Why do get to decide what a threat is? Just repeating "because I say so" doesn't really convince you know.

5) How? The trade will obviously be done via a few more or less respectable individuals, many will disappear after the transaction, cash is good for making people forget. It took the US how many years to find OBL? Biggest army/intelligence network in the world? But I'm sure a few good men working on their spare time could do it faster. Unless they had to keep to the "non agression principle" and not coerce people to tell them what they want to know.

That a tax is unpopular does not make it unjust.  Nobody likes paying taxes.  It was fully legally passed and legitimate.


They attacked him by tarring and feathering him and burning his house to the ground after having previously taken shots at him.  That is not "just public humiliation."  This was also only one incident of many acts of violence and lawbreaking that led to Washington deciding to put down the insurrection.  You are simply making shit up, and it exposes the weakness of your argument when you have to resort to it.

Whether it was just or not was a matter of perspective, and considering that it was one of the core causes of the rise of the Democrat-Republican party (which eventually split ways after the Whigs faded away) and elected Tom Jefferson to repeal it, it obviously wasn't as popular a perspective as you seem to believe.  And yes, a couple hundred men 'attacked' a tax inspector by public humilation known as 'tar and feathering'.  They did him no permanent physical harm, and certainly didn't shoot at him;(apparently they did, after one of his men shot & killed one of the rebels, that's what happens when you shoot first) this after said tax collector had been using strong arm tactics to extract those taxes in his region.  You can't win this, the facts are that the tax was uneven, unpopular and enforced with violent zeal by government agents from afar.  This is why the tax revolt happened, and in reality the tax never did raise the revenue that Alex Hamilton promised that it would, in part because it was so commonly evaded.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion)  The only people known to perish during this whole episode were tax protestors, not government agents of any flavor.

You'll be voting Ron Paul, then?

You are practicing revisionist history.  The Army was sent out only after 500 armed men attacked the home of a tax inspector.  The tax was entirely just and was going to be used to pay down the debt for the very war you are talking about.  The tax was later repealed by Democratic action rather than hot headed and pointless violence.  You don't found a stable country by refusing to pay your debts and allowing citizens to spit on Democratically passed laws.  I'll take George Washington as my leader over any Libertarian ever born.

The Whiskey Rebellion is an great example of exactly what I'm talking about.  Those men were being directly targeted, and had a fair gripe.  They were too far from the markets on the East Coast to do anything other with their surplus corn than make whiskey with it, and suddenly they were being heavily taxed for their relatively rare form of income after fighting a war of independence that was, at it's root about the uneven and oppressive taxation imposed upon them by a distant authority.  They were ignored through normal channels, so when they refused to pay the taxes that the new government demanded of them, the revered President Washington sent the US military into a soveriegn territory to force compliance.  Do you think that the officers & enlisted men of that army unit considered the ramifications of their actions?  Do you?  The very fact that we refer to it as "The Whiskey Rebellion" in history books is propaganda, because it wasn't a rebellion in arms until the army showed up, it was a tax revolt.

...and that Kent State thing...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_state_shooting

It's an unrealistic assumption that they would be unprepared for an armed popular uprising or that the people would not fall under the sway of a tyrannical government as well.  What we know for sure is that the military is full of heroes who have already signed on to put their lives on the line for the sake of the constitution.  They have proved over the history of our Republic to be a force for good, marching to end armed popular insurrections like the Whisky Rebellion and the Civil War and fighting against tyranny overseas.  Our military is an institution worthy of trust and staffed by our friends, family, and neighbors.  The same goes for the police.

It's also an unrealistic assumption that those who are in control of the government at that time would be unprepared for a military coup, nor that any significant number of young officers would be free thinkers capable of seeing past the indocrination and propaganda campaign that would have preceded such a tyrannical government taking control.  It is for this very reason that the Department of the Army (plus Air Force) and the Department of the Navy (plus the Marine Corps) each, independently, answer to an appointed civilian in the executive branch, namely the Secretary of Defense.  In the hopes that a single carismatic leader wouldn't be able to take control of the entire military alone, but doesn't help if the civilian government in charge of the military is the problem.  There would be a great number of veterans who could see through such b.s., removed as they are from the immediate influence of the military culture, and veterans outnumber active miltary by a large margin at any given time, but if the veterans are effectively prevented from owning the tools of their former trade (for example, labeled as 'mentally defective' and therefore ineligible to own firearms http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2012/aug/23/judge-orders-brandon-raub-released-hospital/ ) then they are a neutered threat to tyranny.  Same goes for the organized training of firearms safety to children.  (http://www.adl.org/special_reports/rage-grows-in-America/introduction.asp which is attacking the appleseed project http://appleseedinfo.org )

Hey Coincomm, maybe he'll answer you....





But I wouldn't hold your breath.