11–20 of 36 posts
If you have arms, it means you do not have to fear the stronger ...
It means that if the state wants to take the power by the force, you can oppose to that ...
You really don't know the lucky you are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would we allow individuals to have such power? Who is this "we" that has either the power, right, or wisdom to overrule people on such things? > So the issue of gun ownership is the same issue as freedom in technology Wonderfully said. Power is a zero-sum game. Either I have the right to { own a gun | duplicate a file | mix acid and water in a test tube | print a part on a 3-d printer } or someone else takes th…
> "Who is this "we" that has either the power, right, or wisdom to overrule people on such things?" The same "we" that has existed since the beginning of our species, when groups of humans decided to live together. "We" is an expression of all people - not biased by East or West, Black or White. In all societies the price of living in a group, and enjoying the benefits thereof, are concessions to personal freedom, an…
Given the way that humans have handled one group separating into another, I think this might be a devastating experiment to try. But in theory, it seems plausible that after a number of iterations you would belong to a group that fits your ideals perfectly.
> "According to a 2011 Gallup poll, 47 percent of American adults keep at least one gun at home or on their property, and many of these gun owners are absolutists opposed to any government regulation of firearms. According to the same poll, only 26 percent of Americans support a ban on handguns." This amazes me. I wonder how many of those 47% have had training? Or how many regularly practice firing the gun? This is o…
Still going to be a very large number that are more "active" gun owners, but I think 47% is likely something of an overstatement.
I normally might flag something like this, but there's an important point in here that has to do with our relationship to technology. Guns fill a role in society that allows any person, no matter how weak, to execute deadly force against another. For many, this is the height of idiocy. Why would we allow individuals to have such power? But technology is doing the same thing that guns do -- it's giving every person un…
For example, a majority of Americans think that owning a handgun should be on the "legal" side of the line, while owning a cruise missile should be on the "illegal" side of the line, and owning a nuclear bomb or stockpiles of chemical weapons should be even more on the "illegal" side. People in other countries may draw the line somewhere else, for a variety of fairly complex reasons, but afaict it's still the same basic framework everyone's operating under.
Feels like a cheap solution, there is countries where guns are very hard to get, and in those countries guns are way less used in crimes compared to USA for example. This will result in even more guns and probably a even bigger problem in the future.
There are already 300 million guns in America, and a deeply entrenched culture in favor of keeping them. That is the initial condition we have to work with. Saying "just be more like country X" isn't a solution at all.
I normally might flag something like this, but there's an important point in here that has to do with our relationship to technology. Guns fill a role in society that allows any person, no matter how weak, to execute deadly force against another. For many, this is the height of idiocy. Why would we allow individuals to have such power? But technology is doing the same thing that guns do -- it's giving every person un…
I normally might flag something like this, but there's an important point in here that has to do with our relationship to technology. Guns fill a role in society that allows any person, no matter how weak, to execute deadly force against another. For many, this is the height of idiocy. Why would we allow individuals to have such power? But technology is doing the same thing that guns do -- it's giving every person un…
In time there probably will be something of that destructive power that small organizations or even individuals could create.
A year or so ago I watched a 60 minutes segment on so-called "sovereign citizens." The segment made them out to be relatively deranged, on my own cursory research supports this.
One part DID stick in my mind, though: in an interview with someone with weak ties to the movement (I believe a radio host?), the interviewee said something akin to: "The Second Amendment is not so that we can go duck-hunting." I took this to mean, (and in light of the circumstances around the American Revolutionary War, I think there's a strong case to be made) that the Second Amendment was specifically intended to protect the possibility of armed rebellion.
This is a fairly out-there idea, but then, it's called "Revolutionary" for a reason.
However, when I hear debates about gun control, this context seems to be missing. Is it such a...well...revolutionary concept that we now shy away from it? Or am I completely misunderstanding something?
> "According to a 2011 Gallup poll, 47 percent of American adults keep at least one gun at home or on their property, and many of these gun owners are absolutists opposed to any government regulation of firearms. According to the same poll, only 26 percent of Americans support a ban on handguns." This amazes me. I wonder how many of those 47% have had training? Or how many regularly practice firing the gun? This is o…
I'd rather not be a helpless victim in either case.