The case against guns

[Seth]

Seth

That is nonsense.

Certainly my government has the physical power to kill me or anyone else it chooses, but it would not remain the government for long if it tried. The people and the armed forces would unite and kick it out, and the people in government who so abused their elected power would be arrested, tried, and probably end up in prison for life.

"The people?" Really? What the fuck are "the people" down there going to do when it's the "armed forces" that overthrow the government and take power?

They're going to die in huge numbers, that's what they are going to do because they have no arms with which to prevail over a much smaller military force.

That fact is precisely why the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment. They knew that "the people" always outnumber the standing military, and that if the people are armed, there are enough of them to overwhelm and defeat their own military should it attempt a coup.

There are 300 million of "the people" in the United States, and at least half of them are armed, probably more. We have a standing army of approximately 2.8 million soldiers active and reserves. That's 140 to one. I like those odds.

So, your comments are irrelevant, because being physically able to do something is not important when we know the decisions made will be otherwise.

You "know?" How do you know? What possible guarantee do you have that your military cannot turn on you and subjugate you...or that your nation cannot be invaded by another who will enslave you. I believe that was the plot of a really bad take-off of "Red Dawn" I saw on TV about an invasion by North Korea of New Zealand.

Only idiots believe that their government cannot become a despotic tyranny. Smart people acknowledge that it can happen and they take precautions to ensure that they have the force available to take back the nation from a despot at all times. It's okay to have that capability and not use it, it's fatal to need that capability and not have it.

I am physically able to jump off a boat ten miles from shore, and swim ashore (I am a strong swimmer), but I can totally confirm that I will never willingly do that. Nor will my government ever use its power to kill people. It is only the terminally paranoid, and plain bloody stupid among us who would ever believe such bullshit!

I believe the Jews said much the same thing about the Weimar Republic. And the Venezuelans, and the Nicaraguans, and the Cubans, and the Russians, and the Chinese, and...well, every other population that's been credulous enough to believe that their nation is above corruption and tyranny.

[Blind groper]

Seth

A few points.

1. If a revolution of the people is needed, history shows that they get the arms they need pretty damn quickly. Ask the IRA.
2. Hand guns, which I am suggesting be banned, would be next to useless in such a revolution, which makes your argument against their banning invalid.
3. NZ is not, and never has been in danger of the government going totalitarian. Ditto Australia, Canada, Britain, and the rest of western civilisation. Here in NZ we are so hard on any lapse by a politician that a member of our parliament recently was driven to resign because he was rude to a waiter. Perhaps your government is corrupt enough for you to get worried. That does not apply in genuinely civilised nations.
4. No government can rule without the support of the armed forces. I can say for NZ (and probably Australia, Britain etc) that any such attempt would not be supported by our ordinary soldiers.

In other words, as always, your argument exists in the over heated imaginations of the truly paranoid, and has no validity in the real world.

[Seth]

Seth

A few points.

1. If a revolution of the people is needed, history shows that they get the arms they need pretty damn quickly. Ask the IRA.

You mean the IRA that's lost every battle it's ever fought and still fights against English occupation 800 years later? That IRA?

2. Hand guns, which I am suggesting be banned, would be next to useless in such a revolution, which makes your argument against their banning invalid.

Which (again) fails to explain why our soldiers are armed with handguns and we dropped hundreds of thousands of handguns to the French and others in WWII how, exactly?

3. NZ is not, and never has been in danger of the government going totalitarian.

Doesn't mean it can't be.

Ditto Australia, Canada, Britain, and the rest of western civilisation.

I'm sorry, what? Australia was founded as a penal colony, Canada and Britain suffered under King George and a whole line of other tyrannical English monarchs, as did France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Austria and quite literally every other "western" nation in history, and every other EASTERN nation in history, at one time or another. You really are ignorant of history, aren't 'you?

Here in NZ we are so hard on any lapse by a politician that a member of our parliament recently was driven to resign because he was rude to a waiter.

How about them Maori, eh?

Perhaps your government is corrupt enough for you to get worried. That does not apply in genuinely civilised nations.

Until it does.

4. No government can rule without the support of the armed forces.

Our government doesn't rule. It governs. By the consent of the people, and only by our consent. But in case it doesn't, we reserve the right to keep and bear arms in order to bring government to heel when and if necessary.

I can say for NZ (and probably Australia, Britain etc) that any such attempt would not be supported by our ordinary soldiers.

Until it is. Then what?

In other words, as always, your argument exists in the over heated imaginations of the truly paranoid, and has no validity in the real world.

Thus sayeth the Jews in 1936. How'd that work out for them?

[Hermit]

In other words, as always, your argument exists in the over heated imaginations of the truly paranoid, and has no validity in the real world.

Thus sayeth the Jews in 1936. How'd that work out for them?

How ironic. Without his private army, the SA, the Weimar Republic would not have been overthrown, and Hitler's tyranny would not have happened. The issue of privately owned weapons cuts both ways.

Besides, didn't the entire tyrannical block of communist regimes headed by the the USSR fall due to a lack of public support, and without resort to any militia or weapons to speak of?

[Blind groper]

From Seth
"You mean the IRA that's lost every battle it's ever fought and still fights against English occupation 800 years later? That IRA?"

You make my point for me. Thank you.

Yes, that IRA. The one with bombs, bazookas, heavy calibre machine guns. Rockets. Grenades. Grenade launchers, and more. With all that, it could not win. Although they managed to murder a lot of innocent people and destroy lives.

The idiot American survivalists who store up various guns for their much loved coming revolution will do the same. No more. And the assholes will be rounded up, and treated as murderers, which is what they will be if your plans proceed.

On the Maori in NZ.
My government has never mistreated them. Reason being that the harm done was almost 150 years ago by a British governor. The NZ government was barely a dream then. I was talking of my government, not a colonial ruler. Since the NZ government took over the power of governance, Maori have been treated as legal equals.

Weirdly, the reverse happened in the USA. The natives were not always treated well by the British (like the Maori in NZ). But when the new republic took over, the treatment of the natives went downhill fast. That is one of the reasons I think NZers are more civilised than Americans (to be fair, that applies only to our respective governments. Americans as individuals are usually fine people.). Gun culture is one of the more ugly aspects of the barbarity of many Americans.

[MrJonno]

Nazism was created by militia and people like Seth, once in power it gave guns to more people like Seth and his milita.

The first thing any tyrannical regime does is to give out as many guns, tanks and aircraft as it can, ie it conscripts everyone into the military. You never get tyrannical regimes with small militarises

[Seth]

In other words, as always, your argument exists in the over heated imaginations of the truly paranoid, and has no validity in the real world.

Thus sayeth the Jews in 1936. How'd that work out for them?

How ironic. Without his private army, the SA, the Weimar Republic would not have been overthrown, and Hitler's tyranny would not have happened. The issue of privately owned weapons cuts both ways.

Besides, didn't the entire tyrannical block of communist regimes headed by the the USSR fall due to a lack of public support, and without resort to any militia or weapons to speak of?

No, it failed because Reagan bankrupted the Soviet economy and ended the Cold War. Once the Soviet government couldn't pay its own military, it's ability to impose tyranny evaporated and the satellite states declared their independence.

[Seth]

Nazism was created by militia and people like Seth, once in power it gave guns to more people like Seth and his milita.

Fuck you, asshole.

The first thing any tyrannical regime does is to give out as many guns, tanks and aircraft as it can, ie it conscripts everyone into the military. You never get tyrannical regimes with small militarises

You're an idiot.

[Jason]

In other words, as always, your argument exists in the over heated imaginations of the truly paranoid, and has no validity in the real world.

Thus sayeth the Jews in 1936. How'd that work out for them?

How ironic. Without his private army, the SA, the Weimar Republic would not have been overthrown, and Hitler's tyranny would not have happened. The issue of privately owned weapons cuts both ways.

Besides, didn't the entire tyrannical block of communist regimes headed by the the USSR fall due to a lack of public support, and without resort to any militia or weapons to speak of?

No, it failed because Reagan bankrupted the Soviet economy and ended the Cold War. Once the Soviet government couldn't pay its own military, it's ability to impose tyranny evaporated and the satellite states declared their independence.

And 30 years on they're back and almost as strong as they used to be.. not sure how any of this is relevant. The USSR failed because they couldn't keep pace in the cold war with America, not because the people didn't support it (though that may have been a factor).

[Blind groper]

Interesting ideas

A political essay I read ascribed the fall of the USSR to the fact that Gorbachev ended the internal secrecy, and let the people see what was really going on. With that openness, the old system could not work, which may have been Gorbachev's intent all along.

[Tero]

Why should we give guns to thousands, maybe millions, of idiots, when they keep accidentally discharging them?
http://www.azfamily.com/news/Mesa-polic ... 44561.html

[laklak]

They're giving away guns?? Why wasn't I told? Where do I get my Obamagun?

[Seth]

They're giving away guns?? Why wasn't I told? Where do I get my Obamagun?

Just come down to that big, unmarked building with the tall smokestack belching black smoke with the chain link fence around it and submit your request for a government-issue gun. Then sit quietly in the foyer till someone comes out to escort you to the distribution point.

Oh, and don't worry about those armed guard, dogs and massive locked doors, it's all for your safety.

By the way, you'll need to shower for disinfection purposes before being issued your gun, so disrobe here and take this soap. I know it's kind of hard and rough, but it's government issue, so what can I say.

We'll be in in a moment to assist you...

[orpheus]

.

[Collector1337]

Why should we give guns to thousands, maybe millions, of idiots, when they keep accidentally discharging them?
http://www.azfamily.com/news/Mesa-polic ... 44561.html

Why should I care about idiots accidentally shooting each other and why should I be okay with losing my freedom because of idiots?