"And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman
“The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett
Guns and gun control at the heart of the issue aren't about self defense from burglars, but about overthrowing tyrannical governments.
And I'd much rather live in a free country than a "safe" country.
CR
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
Deal. I'll convince the gun regulators of this, while you convince the gun activists.
"Calculates the need to post for me compared to GC on the matter in this forum. Smiles. Goes on vacation."
I've been in arguments were my opponent have claimed that the first and second sentence in the second ammendment was totally unrelated and I'm close to Husar in opinion.
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
Well, our country was not forged in violence, in fact Americans had a lot of say in the making of our current constitution etc. so why do they now say that we are not free because our constitution doesn't allow us to have guns?
And then I would ask where you draw the line? Where is the point where you see your government as tyrannical? Patriot Act and the government banning people from airplanes wantonly and for minor reasons? SOPA? Or just when they want to take your guns away because that alone defines whether people are free?
Do you seriously think Europeans are less free just because of guns? And do you seriously think that guns are THE great enabler for people to tear down a government? The Libyan rebels had a lot of guns but were still losing ground against the government's tanks until NATO bombed those tanks.
I think the idea that guns secure freedom is about as old and outdated as the constitution and some of the ideas your country is based on.
That doesn't mean America is a bad country but I don't think it's wise to try and apply every last of those 18th century wisdoms to the modern world, it's quite obvious when you think about what they thought of black people back then etc.
Not that that's anywhere in your constitution but it shouldn't hurt to question some of these ideas as well given that many, many years have passed since then.
Guns being so threatening to "the government" is probably a reason for some police officers being so incredibly harsh and quick with their trigger finger, something you complain about often and see as a sign of police tyranny. But noone has formed a mob and used their guns to go and kill the police tyrants yet, which brings us back to where do you draw the line?
![]()
![]()
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
What war would that be? IIRC there were three relatively short ones when Germany was founded for the first time and a really long one before Germany was founded again as it is today.
Germany as it is today is quite different from Germany as it was first founded. The Germany of today was not built on violence, it resulted out of violence but for that very reason it was built on justice and prevention of violence ever playing a big role again.
Our constitution, that was co-developed/heavily influenced by Americans after WW2 doesn't give us the right to bear arms and use them against the government like the second amendment does.
So when Americans say that guns are a fundamental requirement for a people to be truly free, it reads to me like either americans of the late 1940ies didn't want us to be free at all and didn't apply any ideals to us (you might say that's understandable after WW2) or they simply agreed that there are other checks and balances in the constitution that would save the german people from being enslaved by their own government. Or is there something I'm overlooking?
That's okay, coming from the better country it would be more appropriate for me to tell you how to run your country anyway.
Ah yes, but then is freedom not more dependant on education and the will of the people to work for it than whether or not they have guns?
We got our first green minister president here (president of one of the 16 countries) when the people didn't like how the previous government handled building a train station.
While I think it's a bit silly to oppose a new train station that much, no guns were required and heads rolled without more than a few clashes between police and some guys going too far by throwing rocks.
The people can exert a lot of power in a working democracy and voting for the right people can be a lot more powerful than having a gun IMO.
And that's where I see the problem with the USA's near-identical-two-party-system where loads of change and differences are promised but in the end you always get more or less the same with a slightly different tint.
There are some similarities here actually but these parties also lost a lot of votes to smaller parties, a danger that they don't seem to face in the US (where both parties are usually nearly balanced etc.) and that seems to put them back on track and rethink their positions. Signs of a working democratic system for me.
Now the USA aren't exactly undemocratic but the two parties seem very bland to me anyway and even Obama who promised so much change was unable to achieve a lot of it.
It just doesn't seem like the government is very worried about all the gun-wielding citizens anyway and passes a lot of unwanted regulations anyway.
Gun ownership may thus be a small part of the huge puzzle of things that are a sign for freedom in a country but by itself it seems so minor that the embracement it gets seems way over the top to me.
It is neither fundamental nor sufficient in ensuring that a democracy doesn't turn into a dictatorship or oligarchy or whatever.
And I would consider myself a gun nut of sorts, not that I'm a gun-expert but a rather interested/fascinated person so I don't just hate these things.
Yes, that's fine, still doesn't help to cling to a symbol that is essentially useless though. And get on other peoples' nerves by pretending that it actually is useful and insinuating they need it too to be truly free.![]()
I know you didn't do that but some other statements here read like that to me.
Oh no you don't. If the idea of gun ownership was so fundamental then why did they forget it at first and then add it in an amendment?
I completely agree that such changes should be well thought out and carefully made and not touch all the ideals. But then I already said changing it now wouldn't help a lot and it's not the second amendment as such that I see as problematic but how many people worship it, i.e. the culture around it.
Ah yes, this interventionism is coming from that culture that thinks violence and being proactive about everything is the best way to get what you want, many other have it, too, mind you.
It's not US-exclusive but indeed somewhat troublesome.
Our original founder also favoured non-interventionism and diplomacy but then we ended up with Hitler!
Yes, there are tendencies of police being too much among themselves here as well, I think it's typical group behaviour and can be seen in the military, fire service and almost any other tightly-knit group as well. Having a dangerous life-threatening job just exaggerates the group behaviour. And being around even more people willing to use their guns makes it even more life-threatening and thus increases the "us vs. them"-thinking within the group...
Thus is my argument, it's hardly perfect anywhere, but there isn't just black and white either.
I think I'm on fire.
But wait:
Maybe it was too inflammatory after all...
![]()
![]()
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
No, it wasn't. If we see West Germany as the precursor to the nation we have now, it was forged in 1949, WW2 ended in 1945. While the war was what destroyed the Reich and ultimately lead to the forging of the nation, it wasn't forged in a violence but in a post-war climate of never wanting to go to war again and certainly as you say, the Americans not wanting us to go to war again.
It was forged as a most peaceful nation and not as one that uses war and violence as a means to achieve it's goals, which is what your nation thrives on since it had to wage and win a big war in order to come to existance. The idea of what war and violence achieve is a completely different one in our two nations.
I understand where you're coming from, I just wish you came from somewhere else.
As I always understood it, our forefathers fought and died so we would never have to fight and die again and can solve our issues at the ballot box.
If you say we will definitely have to rise again and die and fight to resolve our issues then that means our forefathers have failed and died in vain.
It also means that our entire systems and democracies are not working, which I think is not the case, at least over here. It's not perfect but not beyond repair either.
If the USA are a nation built upon the idea of recurring civil war and bloodshed, that's okay if you like it but please keep me out of it because that's not the kind of nation I want to hand over to my children.
Also China would intervene and conquer you while you're busy.
It's just silly and I would also divide it by religion.
As a Christian, the argument works because heaven is great, then again as a Christian you believe that you will worship god all the time in heaven and not run around toting guns, you also believe that killing is a sin and violence shouldn't be used to get anywhere. And that doesn't fit with the second amendment at all.
Now that we have established that all Americans (except the Amish and so on of course) are actually atheists, why is *the end*/*nothing*/*blackout*, the ceasing of neurochemical activity or what you want to call it preferable to watching the nice blue skies and lush green grass with a chain on your hands and a chance to become free without actually dieing?
And why do people in prison not kill themselves?
That's because the two-party system seems to be unable to achieve the regulation they want at the ballot box. Some people in Germany thought that about our two major parties and so they made a new party which is actually taking votes away from what were our previous major parties, similar to how our smaller parties grow stronger at times where people grow tired of the major ones.
This is a system where you can actually achieve some political change and get a say in government without having to despair because the system is pretty much locked between two parties that no other party can compete with.
Your people fear the government quite a bit and even you think it's ultimately out to get you and you will have to fight it any maybe die fighting it. If the second amendment reduces fear of the government, then it seems like you'd all be terrified of your government without it. Time to rethink the system perhaps?
Hahahahaha.
Seriously? You think I meant Kaiser Wilhelm II. when I said non-interventionist leader?
He sent gun boats around, insulted other nations' leaders and wanted to get colonies.
The person I meant was Bismarck and he didn't use treaties to entangle us, he used them to prevent war.
And I was joking anyway, using a terribly simplified version of history.
They're fun.
And a requirement for proper risk-assessment.
There's trickle down so that's not an issue at all.
The lazy leeches are being treated properly!
Yes, but that depends a lot on strength of character and not all people assess that and the risks associated with it properly before going to risk their lives. Which also means that having to risk your life in order to be free is a pitfall some people cannot avoid and an inherently dangerous idea that doesn't take into account the weak which is a requirement that should be met by the powerful as you just said.
As such any political system that works on the premise of requiring people to risk their lives in order to restore it after unevitably getting corrupted as per it's design, is rotten and badly designed.
I'm not sure whether these lazy commie leeches are better than hard-working police officers but they should be fired for beating up people without a reason and never get a job again so I can call them lazy commie leeches when they inevitably end up homeless.
![]()
![]()
![]()
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Bookmarks