LogFAQs > #897034051

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Is there any good reasons to NOT ban "assault-class" weapons?
darkknight109 03/02/18 4:07:54 AM #43:	Rasmoh posted... Also, we're literally just a few years removed from an incident where an armed civilian militia successfully stood up against the federal government. If by "successfully stood up against the federal government", you mean "squatted in a random, non-military government building in the middle of the wilderness, made zero progress with their demands, and eventually got arrested by the police, charged with trespassing, and, in one case, shot dead (with zero casualties on the government side)", sure, they did a bang-up job. Saying that the Oregon standoff represents a successful rebellion against the government is like saying the Women's March successfully overthrew Trump. And if you want to see what happens to a resistance group when the government decides it actually wants to play hardball (which it was assiduously avoiding in the Oregon case), go look up the Waco siege or the Ruby Ridge standoff. Rasmoh posted... These rights mean absolutely fuck-all without force to ensure they remain in place. If a government decided to start jailing you for disagreeing with them, what the fuck do you plan on doing about it? Um... deal with it like a fucking adult by sticking with resistance methods that actually have a reasonable chance of success instead of deluding myself into thinking I can Rambo my way through the entire United States military? This is a sensationalist and meaningless question. No mature Western democracy has ever had this situation arise, even the ones who have strict bans on weaponry. Rasmoh posted... So? By removing the right of the people to arm themselves, you give all the power to the tyrant outright instead of at least raising a chance of resistance. By removing the right of people to arm themselves I am also removing the tyrant's most reliable path to power by removing his own ability to arm himself and his supporters. I'd say that's a fair tradeoff. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:897034051] in Is there a... [t:76367541]...</cite> <quote><cite>Rasmoh posted...</cite> <quote>Also, we're literally just a few years removed from an incident where an armed civilian militia successfully stood up against the federal government.</quote> If by "successfully stood up against the federal government", you mean "squatted in a random, non-military government building in the middle of the wilderness, made zero progress with their demands, and eventually got arrested by the police, charged with trespassing, and, in one case, shot dead (with zero casualties on the government side)", sure, they did a bang-up job. Saying that the Oregon standoff represents a successful rebellion against the government is like saying the Women's March successfully overthrew Trump. And if you want to see what happens to a resistance group when the government decides it actually wants to play hardball (which it was assiduously avoiding in the Oregon case), go look up the Waco siege or the Ruby Ridge standoff. <cite>Rasmoh posted...</cite> <quote>These rights mean absolutely fuck-all without force to ensure they remain in place. If a government decided to start jailing you for disagreeing with them, what the fuck do you plan on doing about it?</quote> Um... deal with it like a fucking adult by sticking with resistance methods that actually have a reasonable chance of success instead of deluding myself into thinking I can Rambo my way through the entire United States military? This is a sensationalist and meaningless question. No mature Western democracy has ever had this situation arise, even the ones who have strict bans on weaponry. <cite>Rasmoh posted...</cite> <quote>So? By removing the right of the people to arm themselves, you give all the power to the tyrant outright instead of at least raising a chance of resistance.</quote> By removing the right of people to arm themselves I am also removing the tyrant's most reliable path to power by removing his own ability to arm himself and his supporters. I'd say that's a fair tradeoff. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1