JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 31st December 2012, 06:16 PM   #281
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 6,069
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
I Googled the Oath Keepers, and some of their own quotes came up. What, you cite them as an example of rational gun ownership but you don't want to be responsible for defending them?

They are nuts. They are paranoid, right wing, nuts.

You disagree? You don't think they are crazy whacktards?

Interesting (*writes in notebook*)!
I'm not sure - when did you stop beating...

Seriously though, I'm sure some are, some aren't. but it makes a great strawman.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2012, 06:24 PM   #282
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,034
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I'm not sure - when did you stop beating...

Seriously though, I'm sure some are, some aren't. but it makes a great strawman.
You think some of the Oath Keepers are rational? Can you specify which of their views you find persuasive? Because from my vantage point they are like Birchers with badges, but I'm listening.

Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2012, 06:26 PM   #283
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,034
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Premise: Oath Keepers are patriotic americans that can keep the liberals from taking over.
As of this post, you have 19,865 premises. I suggest you narrow it down!
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2012, 06:35 PM   #284
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 23,412
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
You think some of the Oath Keepers are rational?
To be fair, some of them probably are. Then again, some Scientologists are also rational and just haven't been exposed to the core nonsense of the group.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2012, 07:20 PM   #285
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 6,069
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
You think some of the Oath Keepers are rational? Can you specify which of their views you find persuasive? Because from my vantage point they are like Birchers with badges, but I'm listening.

Since neither one of us knows all of 'em, how do it know?

They're not the klan or death angels (see SF Zebra murders) and the splc isn't exactly an un-biased source - they're about as paranoid as the people you wish to marginalize.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2013, 07:41 AM   #286
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,036
Originally Posted by shawmutt View Post
Would you agree that any conflict is a messy complicated endeavor?
Yes. Would agree that there is no time ever and I mean ever, that armed citizens, acting alone have prevented or over turned tyranny?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2013, 09:06 AM   #287
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,036
That the Oath Keepers think there is a need for their very existence

"Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.

We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”

Our motto is “Not on our watch!”

If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you."

suggests a degree of paranoia and desire to find an enemy where there is none. There is no chance of tyranny in the USA and removal of people's rights. That is because there are too many people who work as politicians, military, police and criminal justice who would stop it from happening.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2013, 09:22 AM   #288
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Conspiracy theories aside, it appears that gun lovers are ready to stop being "law abiding" gun lovers at the slightest drop of a hat. If that's true, and they are only law abiding so long as the law suits them, then that's hardly an endorsement of their fitness to brandish weapons.
What is a broad brush Alex?

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
They are certainly not the sort of people I want having concealed weapons permits or walking around with rifles on shoulder straps in "open carry" states.

This guy was seen walking around just days after Newtown.
I'll agree on this case alone, but the vast majority of people who open carry, are not a threat. I open carry when I go fishing, am I a threat? I also open carry while camping too. Am I a threat? No. Neither are the vast majority of people who open carry.

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
People like this are unhinged.
Unhinged? Maybe. Stupid? yeah, definitely stupid.

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
The fact that he felt compelled to do something like this, and scare the crap out of his neighbors, is horrifying.
Agreed. Not a smart move at all.

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
And so is this one of the people who is only following the law so long as the law says he can walk around normal people strapped with his AR-15?
Do you have any evidence of this? Or are you jumping to irrational conclusions?

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Because I'm not seeing that as an argument against gun control. I don't want to bring my kids to a movie and have people like this holding their weapons.
And how many times have you sat beside someone and not known they were carrying concealed?

You don't know.

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Shooter? "Gun enthusiast?" Who knows?
Nope, we can only guess. Did the guy brandish (meaning point) his weapon at anyone? Based on the article, it doesn't sound like he did, or he would have faced criminal charges.

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Maybe I should bring my gun and assume he's a shooter and remove the threat? What could go wrong?
Well, for one, you'd be charged with 2st Deg. Murder.....
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2013, 09:24 AM   #289
brenn
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 601
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Yes. Would agree that there is no time ever and I mean ever, that armed citizens, acting alone have prevented or over turned tyranny?
You place a limit on your statement that guarantees you a win, by avoiding the reality.

From the American and French revolutions to the Russians in Afghanistan, history is full of examples of armed citizens throwing off tyranny. In each example, they were able to get help from outside, to various degrees - - but in every example, the armed citizens had to enter the fight and show some success to get outside intervention.

You may as well say, "1 man with a rifle can't take on a whole army face to face and win - ha, I'm right!" Of course, you would be right, if you dictate unrealistic terms that mean nothing.
brenn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2013, 09:26 AM   #290
Fast Eddie B
Graduate Poster
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 1,979
Anecdote:

Back in the early 80's, I saw an ad that said, "1 in 14 Gets To Wear The Silver Badge". It was looking for applicants to be Dade County, FL deputies.

I was struggling to make any kind of a living as a flight instructor, and thought, "What the heck..."

In any case, there was an interview. One of the questions was, "Could you follow ANY order? Even one you disagreed with?"

I said, no. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that since Nuremburg, "I was only following orders" no longer sufficed. I think I mentioned the French police as now being seen as villains for so easily following Third Reich orders after they were occupied. I thought I had dug a deep enough hole that there was no way I'd get the job.

I did get the job. I don't know if it was because of that answer or in spite of that answer.

As such, I empathize with the stated goals of "Oath Keepers". I have no idea what the group may or may not have morphed into, but taking an oath such as they propose to honor the Constitution is not something I would call radical or paranoid.

But then again, I've been labeled as a paranoid with toy guns and poor reading skills in this thread, so take anything I say with a grain of salt.

Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 1st January 2013 at 09:29 AM.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2013, 09:54 AM   #291
shawmutt
Squirrel Murderer
 
shawmutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,039
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
When did I claim this? I think you're engaging in straw man arguments.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=438

"Make people criminally and financially liable if the guns they are supposed to be storing safely are used in a crime and they didn't exercise due diligence."

Is this a game you like to play? Like a Monty Python sketch.

These laws already exist, an example in CT:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part8/8.2-23.htm

Civil suits also serve this purpose:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/and-...-a-6-year-old/

Last edited by shawmutt; 1st January 2013 at 09:56 AM.
shawmutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2013, 10:10 AM   #292
shawmutt
Squirrel Murderer
 
shawmutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,039
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Would agree that there is no time ever and I mean ever, that armed citizens, acting alone have prevented or over turned tyranny?
You're misrepresenting my argument. I never made this claim. My premise is this: a population familiar with guns is a greater threat to a government that seeks to seize power. Look at all the governments in the past that restricted firearm ownership prior to mass killings. Governments see an armed population as a threat, and it's exactly why the founding fathers implemented the 2nd Amendment. They kept their own history in mind.

This is not some abstract thought by paraniod gun nuts who amass an arsenal. There are people alive who still remember Hitler, Stalin, etc.

I'm not making the claim that I have a crystal ball. I can't tell the future. But looking at history reveals the cyclical nature of humans. If it happened before it's sure to happen again. Right now Mexico is a mess, and they have some of the strictest laws on the books.
shawmutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2013, 01:53 PM   #293
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO
Posts: 5,384
Tell me, in the impossible event that the USA turns tyrannical, how would small arms help against vehicles and aircraft that would be going Syria on anybody that resists?

As well as that, Mexico is just ********** due to the large-scale corruption and the fact that it is on the brink of going the way of Somalia.
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East
NWO Sentryman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2013, 02:12 PM   #294
shawmutt
Squirrel Murderer
 
shawmutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,039
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
Tell me, in the impossible event that the USA turns tyrannical, how would small arms help against vehicles and aircraft that would be going Syria on anybody that resists?
And with all the "going Syria" going on in Syria, those pesky rebels are all conquered now, right? Just that simple, right?

Perhaps the knowledge of the carnage that would result from a power grab is preventing a power grab. That's certainly what the founding fathers had in mind.

Quote:
As well as that, Mexico is just ********** due to the large-scale corruption and the fact that it is on the brink of going the way of Somalia.
...and it's on our border. Already the violence is spilling over to New Mexico and Arizona.

Last edited by shawmutt; 1st January 2013 at 02:13 PM.
shawmutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2013, 02:19 PM   #295
shawmutt
Squirrel Murderer
 
shawmutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,039
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
impossible event...
A lot of the anti-gun rhetoric hinges on "this will never happen", painting anyone who thinks it could happen a paranoid lunatic on the fringe. Anyone who is preparing for it is obviously insane, right?

Do these people actually pay attention to history and current world events?

9/11 showed me how quickly we give up our freedoms for assurances of security, no matter how specious those security measures are.
shawmutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2013, 02:25 PM   #296
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The armpit of L.A.
Posts: 7,857
The Second Amendment isn't about allowing the citizenry to gird themselves for eventual war against our own army. Among other things, it's about removing the barrier between citizen and solider. Where all free people can arm and practice themselves, they enable a volunteer army that is made up of the people, rather than having a protected and government-selected military class, as the British had in Revolutionary times.

That is the responsibility set forth in the Second Amendment. It says that everyone has a stake in their own self protection, whether organized or not, and that the army isn't some totally insulated institution. That is the insurance that the army won't suddenly turn on the people. It is the people.

Should the army suddenly turn anyway and revolution start up again, it won't matter whether we have arms stockpiled or not. The Second Amendment isn't about this and will make no difference. Someone will supply them, just like we see today in Syria. They won't have our best interests at heart. Worldwide chaos will follow shortly thereafter.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2013, 12:45 AM   #297
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
 
rikzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,007
The introduction of the all volunteer Army pretty much wiped out any trace of the "citizen as soldier". We now have a professional warrior class, and the brunt of these two latest wars have been fully on their backs while the rest of the country lives as if it's not at war at all. Hell, Romney forgot to even mention the war in his acceptance speech @ the convention.

If that responsibility was "set forth" in the 2nd...then they must have written it in invisible ink.

-z
__________________
"Man, if Socrates thought like Rick, I don't think Socrates would have ever written a word." - "Red" (@ Red Pill Philosophy FB page)
rikzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2013, 02:44 AM   #298
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,036
Originally Posted by brenn View Post
You place a limit on your statement that guarantees you a win, by avoiding the reality.

From the American and French revolutions to the Russians in Afghanistan, history is full of examples of armed citizens throwing off tyranny. In each example, they were able to get help from outside, to various degrees - - but in every example, the armed citizens had to enter the fight and show some success to get outside intervention.

You may as well say, "1 man with a rifle can't take on a whole army face to face and win - ha, I'm right!" Of course, you would be right, if you dictate unrealistic terms that mean nothing.
It is the armed citizens who claim they need a gun to defend themselves against tyranny who are avoiding reality.

You admit that armed citizens have only ever thrown off tyranny when they are with at least a part of the military (or at least not against), the government and police. That is a far more realistic description of the various revolutions you mentioned.

If a tyranny ever showed signs of appearing in the USA, there are politicians, military people, police officers, judges who would stand to up to and some would support it. They are the ones who would make the difference, not individual citizen gun owners.

By being realistic and referencing history I have shown the argument of owning a gun to prevent tyranny is a fantasy.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2013, 02:55 AM   #299
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,036
Originally Posted by shawmutt View Post
You're misrepresenting my argument. I never made this claim. My premise is this: a population familiar with guns is a greater threat to a government that seeks to seize power. Look at all the governments in the past that restricted firearm ownership prior to mass killings. Governments see an armed population as a threat, and it's exactly why the founding fathers implemented the 2nd Amendment. They kept their own history in mind.

This is not some abstract thought by paraniod gun nuts who amass an arsenal. There are people alive who still remember Hitler, Stalin, etc.

I'm not making the claim that I have a crystal ball. I can't tell the future. But looking at history reveals the cyclical nature of humans. If it happened before it's sure to happen again. Right now Mexico is a mess, and they have some of the strictest laws on the books.
What history has shown us is that civilians with guns are the least important part of protection from tyranny. Politicians, the military and the police and criminal justice system are what is needed.

Saudi Arabia is a tyranny. It is ranked 6th in the world for the number of guns in civilian hands (Guardian gun map of the world). The rulers there do not fear guns in civilian hands are their civilians support the tyranny. Civilians can support as well as opposed tyranny.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2013, 05:21 AM   #300
Fast Eddie B
Graduate Poster
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 1,979
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post

If a tyranny ever showed signs of appearing in the USA, there are politicians, military people, police officers, judges who would stand to up to and some would support it. They are the ones who would make the difference, not individual citizen gun owners.
You seem to have the ability to see the future.

Before we take your above prediction seriously, please present some evidence of same.

On a local level, I think I've already mentioned that a local sherriff has already said he would resign before enforcing a gun ban. The mere existence of the "Oath Keepers" shows he may not be alone.

The scenario in rural, and possibly urban, America could play out as police officers and National Guardsman just saying "No - I will not do that". At that point you might find them organizing into well armed and trained militias - often with the keys to those armories you often drive by. Could get very ugly very fast.

As a thought exercise, remember that the US imprisoned Japanese Americans during the Second World War. What proportion of the "politicians, military people, police officers, judges" actively opposed that? We put them in camps, for Crissakes! If extermination orders had ever evolved, I sure hope there's enough character in our national psyche to ensure massive disobedience to those orders.

But don't you think the average German in the 1930's thought the same thing? The banality of evil, and all that.

Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 2nd January 2013 at 05:23 AM.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2013, 05:26 AM   #301
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO
Posts: 5,384
Originally Posted by shawmutt View Post
A lot of the anti-gun rhetoric hinges on "this will never happen", painting anyone who thinks it could happen a paranoid lunatic on the fringe. Anyone who is preparing for it is obviously insane, right?

Do these people actually pay attention to history and current world events?

9/11 showed me how quickly we give up our freedoms for assurances of security, no matter how specious those security measures are.
I can safely place a dictatorial USA in the same plausibility category as Operation Sealion.
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East
NWO Sentryman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2013, 05:40 AM   #302
Skepticemea
Master Poster
 
Skepticemea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,741
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Civilians can support as well as opposed tyranny.
And they often do, through tacit acceptance of the tyrant's will usually rather than by armed support. Hitler's SD wasn't tooled with much more than the occasional pistol until into the late 30s.

I have no real issue with people wanting to keep their firearms because they like them and they provide them with entertainment, although I don't feel the need myself. I have more of an issue with gunowners stating that they need them to defend against their government becoming a facist (or communist?) state and locking them up. It just seems to be a somewhat shrill and worryingly (to me, at least) paranoid position.

For me, in order to render the "defend against tyranny" argument as reasonable it would require the reasonable suspicion that the tyranny be on the horizon. Is it? Does tyranny really start with removing the right for everyone to own semi-automatic rifles?
__________________
Learn the words!

Last edited by Skepticemea; 2nd January 2013 at 05:42 AM.
Skepticemea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2013, 05:45 AM   #303
Skepticemea
Master Poster
 
Skepticemea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,741
Originally Posted by shawmutt View Post
9/11 showed me how quickly we give up our freedoms for assurances of security, no matter how specious those security measures are.
So why haven't you organised and risen up against those measures? I'm inferring that they aren't acceptable to you as you appear to be using the removal of those freedoms as reasons to be armed.
__________________
Learn the words!
Skepticemea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2013, 06:16 AM   #304
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,036
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
You seem to have the ability to see the future.

Before we take your above prediction seriously, please present some evidence of same.
Both of us are pointing to the past as a prediction of the future. I can point to the past where at no time have armed civilians on their own overthrown or prevented tyranny.

Quote:
On a local level, I think I've already mentioned that a local sherriff has already said he would resign before enforcing a gun ban. The mere existence of the "Oath Keepers" shows he may not be alone.

The scenario in rural, and possibly urban, America could play out as police officers and National Guardsman just saying "No - I will not do that". At that point you might find them organizing into well armed and trained militias - often with the keys to those armories you often drive by. Could get very ugly very fast.
That backs up my point, the potential tyrant would be stopped by the military and police not cooperating far more than armed civilians doing anything.

Quote:
As a thought exercise, remember that the US imprisoned Japanese Americans during the Second World War. What proportion of the "politicians, military people, police officers, judges" actively opposed that? We put them in camps, for Crissakes! If extermination orders had ever evolved, I sure hope there's enough character in our national psyche to ensure massive disobedience to those orders.
Internment of people living in a country that goes to war with their country is a usual practice during war. Just as locking up capture enemy soldiers is. The British interred a lot of Germans who were living in the UK at the start of WWII on the Isle of Man. I do not see such action as the rise of a tyranny.

Quote:
But don't you think the average German in the 1930's thought the same thing? The banality of evil, and all that.
Hitler had the support of most politicians, the military, the police, the courts and the people. He did not get to power just by disarming the civilians.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2013, 06:50 AM   #305
Noztradamus
Master Poster
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,228
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
~~~.

Saudi Arabia is a tyranny. It is ranked 6th in the world for the number of guns in civilian hands (Guardian gun map of the world). The rulers there do not fear guns in civilian hands are their civilians support the tyranny. Civilians can support as well as opposed tyranny.
If the majority of the population supports the government, what justification do you have for labelling it a tyranny?
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2013, 06:59 AM   #306
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,036
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
If the majority of the population supports the government, what justification do you have for labelling it a tyranny?
So Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union were not tyrannies either. Well, we are pretty sure about that as no one ever got to vote them out. By your definition a tyranny only becomes such after the majority of the population turn against it.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2013, 07:07 AM   #307
Fast Eddie B
Graduate Poster
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 1,979
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
So Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union were not tyrannies either.
I'm pretty sure that neither Hitler nor Stalin were true Scotsman, either!
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2013, 12:13 PM   #308
Noztradamus
Master Poster
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,228
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noztradamus
If the majority of the population supports the government, what justification do you have for labelling it a tyranny?
So Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union were not tyrannies either. Well, we are pretty sure about that as no one ever got to vote them out. By your definition a tyranny only becomes such after the majority of the population turn against it.
I'm pretty sure Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union were tyrannies, as I am Saudi Arabia is an oligarchy, but then popular support doesn't define my classification of governments. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

But my question was how do you label a regime with popular support a tyranny?

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
~~~~. The minority should maybe accept they are in a minority and be more open to the requests of the majority.
~~~~
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2013, 01:24 PM   #309
Polaris
Philosopher
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,461
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
Tell me, in the impossible event that the USA turns tyrannical, how would small arms help against vehicles and aircraft that would be going Syria on anybody that resists?

As well as that, Mexico is just ********** due to the large-scale corruption and the fact that it is on the brink of going the way of Somalia.
For sake of argument, I don't think armed resistance would take the form of actual battlefield combat with the Heroic Resistance fighting off MBTs and IFVs with hand-me-down M-14s. I think it would be more like the opening of the FLN's campaign as portrayed in The Battle of Algiers - meaning a campaign against lower level government employees and assassinations.

In other words, a guerrilla war.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2013, 01:32 PM   #310
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,036
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
I'm pretty sure Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union were tyrannies, as I am Saudi Arabia is an oligarchy, but then popular support doesn't define my classification of governments. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

But my question was how do you label a regime with popular support a tyranny?
I don't, tyrannies and popular support do not really go together. Places such as Gadhafi's Lybia appeared to have popular support for him, but once revolution started it faded away. Kim Jong-un forces popular support on the brainwashed North Koreans and so creates the impression of popular support
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 04:09 PM   #311
That19Guy
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 57
Gun control advocates have no Right to judge what people "need" and "don't need." when it comes to Assault Rifles.

That's none of their business.
That19Guy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 04:20 PM   #312
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,155
Originally Posted by That19Guy View Post
Gun control advocates have no Right to judge what people "need" and "don't need." when it comes to Assault Rifles.

That's none of their business.
Our nation decided long ago that you can't own fully automatic weapons. So yes indeed, putting limits on assault rifles is our business.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 04:32 PM   #313
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,034
Originally Posted by That19Guy View Post
Gun control advocates have no Right to judge what people "need" and "don't need." when it comes to Assault Rifles.

That's none of their business.
Are all weapons none of our business, or just assault rifles? Are nukes and tanks OK, and also not our business? And why are your capitalizing "Right" and "Assault Rifles"?
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 05:33 PM   #314
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,657
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Our nation decided long ago that you can't own fully automatic weapons. So yes indeed, putting limits on assault rifles is our business.
Not true and you know better. What are these people doing then? They can't all be narcs can they?

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/?...=&session_key=

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 06:05 PM   #315
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,155
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Not true and you know better. What are these people doing then? They can't all be narcs can they?

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/?...=&session_key=

Ranb
Yes, there is an exemption for weapons produced before a certain date. But as we all know, you can't walk into the store and buy a brand new fully automatic M16 just like the Army uses. Nor are you allowed to own a shotgun with a barrel shorter than a specified length. My point stands, the law can restrict what kind of weapons gun nuts are allowed to own.

Last edited by Kestrel; 7th January 2013 at 06:09 PM.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 07:29 PM   #316
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,657
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
My point stands, the law can restrict what kind of weapons gun nuts are allowed to own.
I thought your point was that you can't own fully automatic weapons.

Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Nor are you allowed to own a shotgun with a barrel shorter than a specified length.
Really? What length is that? I can walk into any store that deals in short barreled shotguns (barrel <18", <26" OAL) and buy one. I have yet to hear of the BAFTE denying any application to transfer and register a firearm that was filled out correctly.

Why are you making claims you have no rational reason to believe are true?

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 07:35 PM   #317
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Our nation decided long ago that you can't own fully automatic weapons. So yes indeed, putting limits on assault rifles is our business.
And you're wrong, again. Do you ever get tired of being so wrong, so often?

It is completely legal to own a fully automatic weapon, with the right taxes being paid, and the BATF signing off on it.

They are as close to "assault rifle" as you're going to get.

What they're trying to implement now, is not an "assault weapons" ban. It's a gun ban.

"Assault weapons" are a made up term to make a gun sound more scary than it really is.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 08:00 PM   #318
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,155
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I thought your point was that you can't own fully automatic weapons.


Really? What length is that? I can walk into any store that deals in short barreled shotguns (barrel <18", <26" OAL) and buy one. I have yet to hear of the BAFTE denying any application to transfer and register a firearm that was filled out correctly.

Why are you making claims you have no rational reason to believe are true?

Ranb
Dude, take a chill pill.

Our country does have rules that limit what assault rifles you can own.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 08:08 PM   #319
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,034
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
"Assault weapons" are a made up term to make a gun sound more scary than it really is.
Is there something in this world scarier than a hunk of metal that can kill someone you love in half a second? How much worse does a gun have to be before you find it scary? Does it have to also set the house on fire? Does it have to leave a radiation half-life? Or does plain old death and dismemberment count these days in your world?
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 08:44 PM   #320
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
In my world, I don't fear inanimate objects. They cannot work on their own.

ETA: The one in my avatar, are you afraid of it?
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.