United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No I'm just pointing out that the argument "Having an AK-47 is going to protect me when Obama rolls a tank through my church" is equally silly. The idea that owning a weapon helps you resist the government when it turns evil was rendered obsolete decades ago. I may be wrong but haven't most revolutions needed the help of the military to survive?

If that was the argument I agree. But the argument is more that a government must fear it's citizens that are armed to the teeth more, which is true.

And I don't know of many revolutions in first world countries lately, but of course the military is the primary source of powers (I mean, when it comes down to it, that's the reason you wait on a red light at night even though the hole ****ing road is empty).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah. People that live in countries with governments are bitches of the state.

Gun Control is just an additional item on the "*****" list.

We live in a democracy, we have an established method of getting rid of bad government.

And In Canada we have strict Gun Control and I'm not a ***** of the state at all.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Organized, mainly non-violent oppression vs Roaming warlords with tanks n' shit

srug

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
We live in a democracy, we have an established method of getting rid of bad government.

And In Canada we have strict Gun Control and I'm not a ***** of the state at all.

Yes you are, my friend.

Also, since when has Canada very strict gun control? And Democracy doesn't means shit. Oppression is oppression, whether one person does it or a slight majority.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If that was the argument I agree. But the argument is more that a government must fear it's citizens that are armed to the teeth more, which is true.

I would argue that would cause the government to become more restrictive.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And I don't know of many revolutions in first world countries lately, but of course the military is the primary source of powers (I mean, when it comes down to it, that's the reason you wait on a red light at night even though the hole ****ing road is empty).

😂 Yeah.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There are other alternatives, obviously.

Mechs n' shit?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I would argue that would cause the government to become more restrictive.

I suppose it has to be considered. I just disapprove of taking away rights for no particularly good reason.

Originally posted by Bardock42
[B]Yes you are, my friend.

In what way am I the ***** of the state?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
In what way am I the ***** of the state?

I am not exactly sure how old you are, but, for example, you get tickets for driving above a ridiculous speed limit...you have to pay money for the government whether you want or not ... you can't legally smoke pot....etc.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I suppose it has to be considered. I just disapprove of taking away rights for no particularly good reason.

I agree that totally banning weapons is too much. However, modern technology needs a certain level of monitoring/safety measures in order to prevent abuse. A few hundred years ago a pissed off guy with sword wasn't that dangerous unless he'd been trained. Today an angry person with a gun can hold off anything short of a SWAT team if he's standing in the right place.

Originally posted by Bardock42
you have to pay money for the government whether you want or not

Actually I'm pretty sure that most governments let you leave.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I agree that totally banning weapons is too much. However, modern technology needs a certain level of monitoring/safety measures in order to prevent abuse. A few hundred years ago a pissed off guy with sword wasn't that dangerous unless he'd been trained. Today an angry person with a gun can hold off anything short of a SWAT team if he's standing in the right place.

True, but, it's a secondary issue. They want to ban guns because someone might abuse them for all people. Which is not really fair. I mean, a criminal will still have possibilities to get such a weapon (it might be harder, true, but it probably can be done) and the normal citizens will be banned, I'm not sure if that's really an advantage.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Actually I'm pretty sure that most governments let you leave.

Why do I have to leave. I was born here. I, again, will be governments *****, by leaving cause it has the big gun.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not exactly sure how old you are, but, for example, you get tickets for driving above a ridiculous speed limit

...you have to pay money for the government whether you want or not ... you can't legally smoke pot....etc.

When a government decides to spend money on something, they can't go around and ask each and every person whether they agree or not.

And as for legally smoking pot, that is something where laws are made to prevent harm and help keep society along the lines that the majority wants.

What you want in anarchy.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Speed Limits are necessary for public safety.

Debatable.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
When a government decides to spend money on something, they can't go around and ask each and every person whether they agree or not.

They should. It's each and every person's money that they spend.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
And as for legally smoking pot, that is something where laws are made to prevent harm and help keep society along the lines that the majority wants.

Yeah, just that it isn't in that case. And just because you agree with the governments laws doesn't mean that you aren't their *****.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
What you want in anarchy.

True. But I'll settle for minarchy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Debatable.

True. But I'll settle for minarchy.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
No it's not, speed limits help prevent accidents which cause harm and death.

Arguable.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Then nothing would ever get spent, because not everyone will agree.

And it shouldn't. Because it's not the money of the government.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Thats why you try to get a candidate elected that will support your views.

Yeah, you try. But almost no candidate supports exactly your views. And though I agree it's more convenient to be the oppressor, it's still no better.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Which cannot exist in the real world.

Both can, actually.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So. You want to take away the rights of free people because some are idiots. Assault weapons can obviously be used for protection. I'd assume you could also use them for hunting. Or you might just enjoy collecting them. Whatever it is, the point is that you shouldn't take away rights of people cause you are on a silly power trip...

The fact that the NRA and people of that ilk go apeshit even over the idea of a 3 day waiting period is indicative of their inability to reason.

Originally posted by Strangelove
banning assault weapons isn't about power trips, it's about safety.

The fact that the NRA goes apeshit even over the idea of a 3 day waiting period is indicative of their inability to reason.

Nah, it's about power trips.

And I agree with that part, though I think there doesn't need to be a 3 day period, it is a decent offer in order to avoid complete bans.

You can say it's about power trips, but then again, you're an anarchist. Everything the government does is about power trips.

There are certain things that there can't be a real dissent on, like banning "cop killer" bullets. Who would want to argue for their legality? And 3 day waiting periods are the smallest of inconveniences if you want to buy a gun. If someone walks into a gun store and needs one RIGHT NOW, I'm not sure he's the kind of person you want with a gun at all.

Originally posted by Strangelove
You can say it's about power trips, but then again, you're an anarchist. Everything the government does is about power trips.

True.

Originally posted by Strangelove
There are certain things that there can't be a real dissent on, like banning "cop killer" bullets. Who would want to argue for their legality? And 3 day waiting periods are the smallest of inconveniences if you want to buy a gun. If someone walks into a gun store and needs one RIGHT NOW, I'm not sure he's the kind of person you want with a gun at all.

Hey, I can reason with that. It's an acceptable victory for both sides I guess. But, ultimately and philosophically, I am pretty much for a free market on gun sales.

Hot damn, we have an accord.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Hot damn, we have an accord.