Harrison in 20 years?

[Harrison]

It's equally as foolish to think the world will always be stable in your little comfort sphere as it is to believe that the world will definitely collapse into anarchy around you in your lifetime (here anyways, we're not Eastern Europe or the Middle East).

That's how I see that argument anyways. People are fat ignorant fucks far too comfortable in their little bubbles in this country. Shit can hit the fan. It's just unlikely.

Couple another depression the likes of The Great Depression with a few other things and I can foresee our little bubbles going FUBAR real fucking quickly.

Like I said, it is very unlikely. To say it is impossible is foolhardy at best, though.

[Arlos]

Actually, short of a worldwide nuclear war or dinosaur-killer sized asteroid strike leaving us all in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, I believe the US so utterly disintegrating and fragmenting as to reach the level of tribal warlordism and mass oppression through some kind of tyrannical military junta IS impossible.

Slightly more likely is some kind of national shock and tragedy causing people to voluntarily surrender their liberties, like what started to happen with Bush post 9/11, what with people being willing to excuse torture, blatant invasions of privacy like warrantless wiretaps, etc. etc. etc. The irony there, of course, is that it is the same people that most scream about needing their "guns to fight tyranny" were the same ones who were backing Bush's erosion of liberties. So, the same people that claim to want to fight tyranny are the same ones that seem to be most willing to support it, so that renders their whole argument moot anyway.

In any case, look at what's been happening lately. There's been a mass national backlash against the Bush excesses and erosions of freedoms and liberty. That tells me the national fabric is still pretty damn sound, strained as it might have gotten, as we use the LAW to preserve liberty, not some hyper-masculine adolescent Rambo-fantasy analog.

-Arlos

[brinstar]

moot

thank you

i see/hear more instances of "mute" than i do "moot" these days, and it drives me up the fuckin wall

[Lueyen]

Name one country where an armed populace was necessary to "defend liberty" that had a 200+ year tradition as a stable representative democracy. Every single case that I'm aware of where you might have a case for an armed populace being vital was in one that was already prone to tyranny or had recently been ruled by a monarchical or oligarchical system.

Name one country (besides the US) who has had a 200+ year tradition as a stable representative democracy. Venice (the city, not Italy it's self) probably had the longest for around a thousand years, of course that ended with Napoleon, wasn't really a representative democracy of the people (only the privileged could vote) and wasn't an entire country. Beyond that we are pretty much the longest, with very little change to our core foundation (you know because it's really groovy stuff).

Not to mention, if the state TRULY was bent on oppression and tyranny, a handful of civilians, armed or not, would not matter, as I said, a rat fart in a hurricane. You think if Cambodian citizens had been armed they could have stopped Pol Pot? HAH. Did or would have armed civilians in Tanzania do anything to slow down Idi Amin? I think not.

What do you think the answer of all the people killed in both of those countries would be if they were given the choice of death unchallenged or death fighting their oppressors?

The notion that somehow just because you happen to own a shotgun, that you will, in your lifetime, be called to "Rise up and defend your liberty against a tyrannical government" is an infantile fantasy. To use such an argument as a basis for why you need a firearm is likewise an infantile and thoroughly specious argument.

Fuck You.

The closest this country has EVER come to giving up our liberties was in the McCarthy era and most recently under Bush, when people were so terrified by 9/11 that they were willing to let Bush and Cheney and Co. get away with egregious violations. EVEN THERE, however, we never came anywhere remotely close to a situation like you posit. No one attempted a military coup to seize absolute power, our system of democracy still functioned, and now we have a different administration in power that behaves very differently. So much for our descent into tyrannical oppression.

I notice you didn't mention our government rounding up American citizens due to their ethnicity and throwing them into internment camps, which is more egregious to the citizens of this country, and more in line with the way oppressive governments get started then anything done during the Bush Administration. Those events also support what Gidan said regarding resistance always being the best option. If there had ever been a time that hands down would have justified violent uprising that would have been it, however that was not the best course of action, as it would have likely solidified the majority of an already suspicious and tentatively supportive public due to circumstance. One would hope this sort of thing would not be repeated, but to gamble on it is stupid.

Even if the unthinkable happened, you honestly think you'd ride through the streets in a pickup truck, gun raised, as you led a wave of gun-packing civilians into Washington to throw down President Palpatine? Please, you'd be taken in the middle of the night and carted off to prison if you were an insurrectionist, or do you really think you having a shotgun in the house would protect you against a SEAL or SWAT team coming to arrest you? What, you planning on running into the forest, painting your face, and going all Patrick Swayze and yelling WOLVERINES at the top of your lungs as you sniped down the faceless government stormtroopers?


Riiiight.

Here, a helpful link for you:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/


-Arlos

Again Fuck You.

I'd hope by now you would give me more credit then someone who forms views based on Star Wars and Red Dawn, you want to make up a bunch of condescending crap to characterize my position that's the only response you deserve.

[Tikker]

I'd hope by now you would give me more credit then someone who forms views based on Star Wars and Red Dawn, you want to make up a bunch of condescending crap to characterize my position that's the only response you deserve.

all you do is toe the right wing line

you have no room in your brain for actual thought for what others say, because you KNOW what the answers should be

there are no discussions with you

[brinstar]

pff devolving your entire arguments to a series of "fuck you"

nice

[ClakarEQ]

Wow, I thought we had a good thing going, even Harri and I didn't resort to the name calling shit yet /hug harri.

[vonkaar]

Fuck you

[Kaemon]

Fuck you?!!?

FUCK ME!!!

[brinstar]

fuck everyone

LOOK, WE'RE DEBATING!!

[10sun]

Shoes?

[Harrison]

pff devolving your entire arguments to a series of "fuck you"

nice

Well to be fair he did tell him his ideas were "infantile" and essentially that he needed a tinfoil hat, and/or that he was an idiot.

Boil the wall of words used down and "fuck you" is an appropriate response.

[Arlos]

No, no it's not. There's a big difference between denegrating an idea or concept, and engaging in personal insults. If he wished to refute my position, he should have argued why he feels it is possible that his scenario could come to pass, and how that justifies him owning a firearm. Oh, and Switzerland has had Democracy for quite some time, at the VERY least since the 1840s, so it's going on 200 years certainly. I don't think they're in any imminent danger of collapse into tribal warlordism, do you? And no, I don't think their dis-inclination to anarchy and tyranny has anything whatsoever to do with how many Swiss citizens are or are not armed.

The plain fact is, the idea that within our lifetime or the foreseeable future, the US will undergo such a overwhelming collapse and re-alignment as to allow for even the possibility of the utter loss of democracy and the rise of an tyrannical non-representative government along the lines of a Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc. IS utterly ludicrous. Even if you wish to posit the infinitesimal chance it does happen, whether or not some segment of the populace is or is not armed is not going to matter one iota. Period.

The belief that not only will one of those kind of scenarios occur, but that you, personally, by the fact that you own some kind of firearm will be able to rise up and defeat the Unholy Emperor *IS* an infantile fantasy straight out of Star Wars or Red Dawn. It is so ridiculous, in fact, as to indeed descend to the level of the Tinfoil hat and Black Helicopter set. I'm sorry, but that's the long and short of it.

Now, if Lueyen lived in Bolivia or sub-Saharan Africa somewhere, he might have a greater case for his concept, but the fact is, he does not. Even if he did, the vastly most likely outcome of him being a known agitator or insurrectionist, firearm or not, would be his arrest in the middle of the night by the equivalent of a SWAT team. I don't care how many guns you have or own, against that, you're dead meat. So again, ownership of firearms is, in the main, utterly irrelevant.

Note that in all of this, I am in no way saying that people in this country don't have the right to own firearms. Just that the particular reason given in this case for why we SHOULD have the right is utterly specious and ridiculous. Perhaps it made sense 200 years ago. Today, however, it does not.

-Arlos

[brinstar]

words words words

i was waiting for the "yo mama"

[Lueyen]

Tikker - I don't just tow the right wing line. Off hand on things that have been discussed on this board, my views regarding the issue of gay marriage, illegal drugs, and flag burning in protest would not be considered right wing. Yes I do often find the positions of the right most closely resemble my own, but it's not an absolute.

Arlos you gave an answer to your own question that is incorrect.

Name one country where an armed populace was necessary to "defend liberty" that had a 200+ year tradition as a stable representative democracy.

Switzerland is not a representative democracy, it is a direct democracy. That's not just mincing words, because the differences between the two translate into a whole lot of dynamic differences that would dictate how easily one could be subverted vs another given different types of tactics.

For the record I don't see it happening in my life time that armed insurrection would be a necessity in the US. Who is to say however what future generations may face, and retention of rights is much easier than regaining them. As far as the effectiveness of armed civilian segment, I'd have to disagree. Much the same thing has been said in the past and has been proven wrong, depending on what your definition of effectiveness and/or victory is.

[Tikker]

Switzerland is not a representative democracy, it is a direct democracy. That's not just mincing words, because the differences between the two translate into a whole lot of dynamic differences that would dictate how easily one could be subverted vs another given different types of tactics..

no, not really

you've attempted to define the argument in such a way that really only the USA meets your criterion

[Lueyen]

Switzerland is not a representative democracy, it is a direct democracy. That's not just mincing words, because the differences between the two translate into a whole lot of dynamic differences that would dictate how easily one could be subverted vs another given different types of tactics..

no, not really

you've attempted to define the argument in such a way that really only the USA meets your criterion

No, not really

Name one country where an armed populace was necessary to "defend liberty" that had a 200+ year tradition as a stable representative democracy.

I didn't change the criteria one bit from what Arlos asked. I think it's interesting however that you point out that the USA is the only one meeting that criteria, it was essentially a straw mans argument. What is even more interesting however is realizing just how limiting the question is when 200+ years is stipulated. Very few democracies last that long, historically speaking we are due to see a government collapse in some way shape or form.

[10sun]

I wouldn't call the Civil War part of the US history when the government was stable.

[Lueyen]

I wouldn't call the Civil War part of the US history when the government was stable.

That's a good point, although I think the reason we sort of get a pass on that one when historians consider the stability and running time is that the outcome was that our government was largely unchanged at least on paper.

[Tikker]

well I guess my main point was that there are a fair number of democratic style countries with long histories of relatively unarmed, or very lightly armed populaces that haven't been wiped out by an oppressive government


I think if you go back thru history you'll see heavily armed populaces are much more likely to wipe out the government, than the other way around

[Lueyen]

Tikker what do you consider "long histories"? Like I stated before 200 years seems to be about the average expiration for democracy. We have quite a few current democracies around the world that got their start in the early 1800's and will very soon be hitting that 200 year mark. The relative success of those countries may very well change that average, so I don't see lack of examples in the context of 200+ years as necessarily disproving your point. I suspect that given the current state of the world you won't see these relatively young democracies taken down by outside powers, nor do I see that as their greatest threat moving forward.

I think if you go back thru history you'll see heavily armed populaces are much more likely to wipe out the government, than the other way around

This is likely where our opinions will drastically differ. I'm betting that you see the truth in the above statement as a bad thing, and I would look at it as a positive. This is exactly what a statist fears, and rightfully so. You see I fear less the concept of an outside force toppling our democracy then I do it being toppled from the inside, not by violent insurrection but by the transfer of power out of the hands of the individual to the state. Indifference and acquiescence are the greatest threat to democracy in this day and age, and may very well explain the "expiration date" of democracy. It is the sad state of human nature that when oppressed we yearn to be free, but once free we eventually seek to trade off our responsibilities paying for it with freedom.

[araby]

in other news, N Korea just tested their second nuclear weapon.

[Lyion]

It's a losing cause, Lueyen. This has, is, and always be a terrible forum for any sort of political discussions.

The Canadian's will ad hoc you to death while proclaiming moral superiority. The US liberal types here run consistent circular logic arguments without any regard to the actual definition of liberty in their desire to be egalitarian at whatever costs.

The only guy remotely conservative besides you and I is so outlandish as to make any sort of rational discussions here nigh impossible, which still leads me to the belief he is an alter ego of Vonk.

The only consistent is all politics is about power and constituencies. The pendulum is now swinging to the left. In a few years it'll come back to the right. Especially if Cap and Trade passes.

[Arlos]

It's a losing cause, Lueyen. This has, is, and always be a terrible forum for any sort of political discussions.

Oh please. Get a grip. Just because some people disagree with you, and actually argue using *gasp* logic and evidence doesn't make those arguments in any way circular or specious. The irony here is not once I have I advocated taking 1 firearm away from anyone who isn't a felon or crazy, and most certainly not from someone who is a responsible gun owner. Oh yes, that's SUCH a radical liberal position...

I simply completely and totally disagree with the very premise that civilian firearms are in any way necessary to "preserve liberty" or as a "guarantee against tyranny." There are all sorts of European nations without an enshrined right to own firearms. I don't exactly see any of them as despotic and tyrannical, hrm? How about Japan? Is that an oppressive where people have no rights? My argument about the duration of the US democracy was simply to illustrate the vast unlikeliness of us ever somehow undergoing such a radical shift, not when we have so many years of tradition behind our current form of government. Even when there HAVE been assaults on liberty, such as under the last administration or Watergate, or the Japanese internment, they have been very short lived, were generally rectified rapidly, and immortalized as national shames so hopefully not to be repeated again. One of the things I gave Bush credit for at the time, and still do, is he resisted all the pressure he was under to in any way officially and publicly single out muslim-americans for different treatment under the law in a fashion akin to the Japanese in WW2.

As for how long the swing back to the left lasts, I suppose that will be influenced by how long the GOP engages in its current round of circular firing squad tactics. It will also depend on whether or not it really does follow Rush's lead, and purge all elements of moderation in the name of ideological purity. Lyion, you once claimed to be for moderates in control of the government. Would you still support the GOP if it ends up as far right as the Green party is to the left, which is what Rush & Co are pushing for? To be quite honest, in my opinion, the more they reduce Reagan's "Big Tent" to a decrepit porta-john labeled "RICH WHITES ONLY", and the longer they continue to have noting resembling new ideas of their own and continue being the party of "No", the longer their time in the political wilderness will be. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if the GOP did continue to follow Rush's lead, and out of that push to the right we got a 3rd party made up of people of Powell's or, say, Olympia Snow's ilk. I still wouldn't join such a party, but I think they'd be far more reasonable to work with than the current GOP is.

Another reason I think you'll see a longer time with the left in charge this time is because of the (correct) impression that the policies of the right is what led to such grave economic chaos. The first wave of de-regulation of financial institutions in the 80s spawned the S&L crisis. That should have been our signal that perhaps the people in the 30s knew what they were doing when they enacted those regulations, as there had been no such events since they'd been enacted. Then, the complete lack of any regulation on derivatives, the cutback in oversight and regulation in general, plus the removal of restrictions of banks and investment houses resulting in banks being far more willing to take on risk and leveraged positions, as well as letting many grow to a size where they ARE too big to be allowed to fail landed us in this current mess. Since it is the right that is perceived to be behind allowing that to happen, and since the populace of the US fears economic chaos more than just about anything else, I think it will be quite some time before memories fade enough for trust to come back again.

Now, if Obama's economic policies somehow fail spectacularly, and we're running 25% unemployment by 2012, unlikely as that is, all bets are off, of course. I don't think in any way that that would happen, but I mention it out of fairness. So, I suppose we'll see whre things stand in a couple more years.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Read this thread and try to do it from Lueyen's point of view, Arlos, and tell me this isn't a terrible forum for political discussions. Perhaps not if the majority are young or foreign and share ones views.

I don't 'support' the GOP, they are merely the lesser of two evils. I prefer Congress split, and the Presidency rotating. It allows for the least amount of damage. The federal government generally solves nothing, it merely spends and creates problems.

In regards to the pendulum, the public is fickle. It has nothing to do with the GOP. The Dems took over the legislative in 2006. They now control the whole kit and kaboodle. It paints the same target on them the GOP had before. Whether it's 2 years or 8 they are on borrowed time, it just depends on when the screwup is. It's the nature of American politics. Fortunately, most of the legislative things I detested have fallen by the wayside, such as card check and FOCA. Cap and trade is still around and could sink the DNC in 2012 and give the Presidency and half of congress back to the GOP easily.