Your political opinions

[Donner]

You have a valid point. But if the US gov't decided to go full tyranny and launch an attack against its own citizens, where do you stand on this matter? On your feet fighting, or on your knees submitting? It comes down to how much do you value your freedom.

Oh please. The United States is not united for or against anything. Every state is different, they're like their own mini countries. If the government were to attack any states, some would defend themselves and others would join with the government to bring that state down.

 

[writer0327]

Just to be clear. I support the right of people to own firearms. While I don't have one, my mother and others in my family do. I just think that certain kinds of arms shouldn't be allowed; you know, the kind that we've seen slaughtering innocent civilians on an all too often basis. Furthermore, WHO is allowed to own firearms should be strictly regulated, training and licensing should be mandatory, extensive background checks need to be done, and possession of unauthorized firearms should carry severe punishments. They are dangerous, as are cars, and users/owners should be licensed.

I agree, most people who own guns, legally and illegally, are poorly trained to use them and that should be a requirement for gun ownership.

 

[InCali]

You have a valid point. But if the US gov't decided to go full tyranny and launch an attack against its own citizens, where do you stand on this matter? On your feet fighting, or on your knees submitting? It comes down to how much do you value your freedom.

I would stand with those who also believe in democracy and not with those who support a wanna be tyrant and overturn an election that clearly didn't have any issues that could have possibly changed the outcome an election. If the military were to, as a whole, go full on Pinoche, we'd be in a lot of hurt no matter what. Fortunately, that is almost incomprehensible. This is why I put civilian control of the military, free speech and press as more important than an interpretation of the 2nd amendment. We have guardrails that have worked pretty good so far, but I think the test would come if we did have the government heavily involved in the industries I mentioned earlier as it would be devastating to their profits. These people who basically control production make a lot of money off it and I suspect they believe a lot more in their profits than a true democracy.

 

[writer0327]

Oh please. The United States is not united for or against anything. Every state is different. If the government were to attack any states, some would defend themselves and others would join with the government to bring that state down.

But what does that have to do with it. So let's say you're on the wrong side of the conflict, and now a government official is at your front door, knocking, and saying you need to turn yourself in. The rescuing armies haven't arrived, no one is coming, and your freedom is at stake, right now....what would you do?

 

[Donner]

But what does that have to do with it. So let's say you're on the wrong side of the conflict, and now a government official is at your front door, knocking, and saying you need to turn yourself in. The rescuing armoes haven't arrived, no one is coming, and your freedom is at stake, right now....what would you do?

Fortunately, I don't live in a gun nut country like the US.

I also don't deal in crazy hypotheticals. Again I reiterate that I don't believe these gun freaks when they say they want to load up to defend against the government. I think they want to load up because they're insecure and they feel manly with a weapon. I would much rather those people not have any firepower.

 

[Donner]

If the US government ever attacked its own citizens, you can be damn sure that other citizens would be right there with the government doing the attacking. It would never be as simple as a citizens v. government war. It would be a civil war with everyone fighting each other. The government may not even lift a finger. Trump is proof that some people are too stupid and too gullible and can be convinced to do the attacking.

In that case, weapons are no good and you should just get the hell out of dodge.

 

[writer0327]

I would stand with those who also believe in democracy and not with those who support a wanna be tyrant and overturn an election that clearly didn't have any issues that could have possibly changed the outcome an election. If the military were to, as a whole, go full on Pinoche, we'd be in a lot of hurt no matter what. Fortunately, that is almost incomprehensible. This is why I put civilian control of the military, free speech and press as more important than an interpretation of the 2nd amendment. We have guardrails that have worked pretty good so far, but I think the test would come if we did have the government heavily involved in the industries I mentioned earlier as it would be devastating to their profits. These people who basically control production make a lot of money off it and I suspect they believe a lot more in their profits than a true democracy.

I definitely accept the bolded part. It's gonna be ugly no matter what.

i guess I look at it this way.... which group is easier for the government to take freedoms from, if it came to that? A country full of armed people or a country full of unarmed people?

 

[InCali]

Fortunately, I don't live in a gun nut country like the US.

I also don't deal in crazy hypotheticals. Again I reiterate that I don't believe these gun freaks when they say they want to load up to defend against the government. I think they want to load up because they're insecure and they feel manly with a weapon. I would much rather those people not have any firepower.

I'm frankly a lot more worried about people who carry guns to a statehouse to express their displeasure over wearing a Fing mask than I am about the government. People like that should NOT be allowed to have guns. Nor should those who plan on kidnapping and executing elected officials because they issued a mask requirement. A "law enforcement" official who suggests that they were maybe just trying to arrest her (which he described as "legal") should NOT be in a position of authority. I mean, c'mon....WTF.

 

[Donner]

I definitely accept the bolded part. It's gonna be ugly no matter what.

i guess I look at it this way.... which group is easier for the government to take freedoms from, if it came to that? A country full of armed people or a country full of unarmed people?

That's a very simplistic view. Being armed doesn't mean **** for "freedom." It's a false sense of security.

 

[writer0327]

That's a very simplistic view. Being armed doesn't mean **** for "freedom." It's a false sense of security.

I can understand what you're saying, I just see it differently. I feel collectively our freedom is in our own hands, which means individually, my freedom is in my own hands.

 

[Donner]

I can understand what you're saying, I just see it differently. I feel collectively our freedom is in our own hands, which means individually, my freedom is in my own hands.

I think that people need to want to protect the freedoms of others if they truly want to protect their own freedom.

It's like someone being thankful that a bully went after another person instead of them, not realizing that once the bully is done with the other person, they'll go after them.

I think people have a moral duty to protect everyone's rights, not just their own.

 

[writer0327]

I think that people need to want to protect the freedoms of others if they truly want to protect their own freedom.

It's like someone being thankful that a bully went after another person instead of them, not realizing that once the bully is done with the other person, they'll go after them.

I think people have a moral duty to protect everyone's rights, not just their own.

I agree. But if I can't protect myself, how can I protect anyone?

 

[Donner]

I agree. But if I can't protect myself, how can I protect anyone?

I would argue that protection is much more than owning a weapon. It's about voting with a conscience and using your voice to drown out racism and sexism and dangerous ideologies.

Owning a gun is easy. It takes no effort. Any ahole can do it. But standing up for what's right? Using your voice to call out injustice? That takes actual courage.

 

[InCali]

Your and my protection DEPENDS on each other. Period. Remember United We Stand? As a group, we offer each other protection. As a civilized society, we have to recognize certain norms whether the end result is to our liking or not. Regardless of whether you thought Trump did "some" good things or not, his latest antics are the strongest argument yet that he is unfit to be in any sort of public office.

Whether you like it or not, we have to make decisions about our society collectively. I've lived under a system that I have some fundamental disagreements with, but recognize that people aren't where I'm at and accept that. What all this 2nd amendment discussion on the right has done is caused people to decide they should take the law into their own hands whether it's legal or not. This view of gun ownership has hurt rather than helped democratic discussion because it's all about "the government". The government, while deeply flawed, is less of a threat than the white supremacist and ultra right wing "freedom" groups Trump has encouraged. It should be clear to everyone that the debate in those circles is not about what society at large accepts, but what THEY want.

 

[writer0327]

I would argue that protection is much more than owning a weapon. It's about voting with a conscience and using your voice to drown out racism and sexism and dangerous ideologies.

Owning a gun is easy. It takes no effort. Any ahole can do it. But standing up for what's right? Using your voice to call out injustice? That takes actual courage.

I completely agree. Protection is much more than owning a weapon. Like you said, voting for the right people, for the right laws, must be taken into account. Calling for justice for all people...absolutely. But someone still has to protect me from the bully, and there's plenty of bullies. The police might not get there in time, or the police might be the bully. That's why 2A is so imperative, because without it, I'm at the mercy of those who would subject me, without any recourse.

 

[writer0327]

As a group, we offer each other protection.

100% agree with this, but collectives are made up of individual people. That's why I speak from that position. I don't like to think in terms of large faceless groups. We are individual people with our own lives, wants, needs, dreams, etc. It takes an individual to make a individual decision to defend and protect himself and others at the cost of possibly his own life, and we should never minimize that.

his latest antics are the strongest argument yet that he is unfit to be in any sort of public office.

100%, which is why I never voted for him. There are some points where I felt I agreed with him, but he has no business being the President.

The government, while deeply flawed, is less of a threat than the white supremacist and ultra right wing "freedom" groups Trump has encouraged.

This is where I kind of disagree. Who's to say these last 4 years are just an anomaly? What's to say we won't have a worse situation ruling over us someday? I appreciate the healthy optimism, but if anything, these last 4 years, and this last year in particular, should've shown how much of a threat the government and its agents can be.

 

[InCali]

100% agree with this, but collectives are made up of individual people. That's why I speak from that position. I don't like to think in terms of large faceless groups. We are individual people with our own lives, wants, needs, dreams, etc. It takes an individual to make a individual decision to defend and protect himself and others at the cost of possibly his own life, and we should never minimize that.

100%, which is why I never voted for him. There are some points where I felt I agreed with him, but he has no business being the President.


This is where I kind of disagree. Who's to say these last 4 years are just an anomaly? What's to say we won't have a worse situation ruling over us someday? I appreciate the healthy optimism, but if anything, these last 4 years, and this last year in particular, should've shown how much of a threat the government and its agents can be.

Me llamo Pollyanna.

I'm also something of a student of history and believe that, in general, this country has been slowly moving in the right (correct) direction. While it's "possible" we could get worse, I think it more likely we'll continue to improve (with some likely bumps in the road); especially once we are able to figure out how to mitigate corporate influence in every aspect of our lives. In any case, a 30.06 isn't going to be much protection if the police or military are coming for your ass. If it's that burglar I got in a fight with in my backyard, that's another issue. He went to jail and, probably fortunately for me, he was more interested in getting away from the police (he obviously didn't) than he was in continuing to throw blows with me.

 

[MaceB]

This is where I kind of disagree. Who's to say these last 4 years are just an anomaly? What's to say we won't have a worse situation ruling over us someday? I appreciate the healthy optimism, but if anything, these last 4 years, and this last year in particular, should've shown how much of a threat the government and its agents can be.

To me, this is a strange lesson to get out of the last 4 years. A far right, wanna-be Fascist came to power..... supported by millions of Tea Party Zealots. Once in authority, this group unsurprisingly moved to grab power, to flood the air space with lies and propaganda, to attack the checks and balances designed to limit their power, and now to ignore the results of the election. Literally, a dysfunctional party has brought the country to a screaming halt..

And the lesson isn't about how far-right ideologies are dangerous, or how a small portion of our citizens can actually prefer Fascism, or that Republicans aren't really democratically elected anymore? You're saying that the real lesson is that we'll need guns to stop this from happening in the future?

Seems to me that access to guns really isn't the issue here. It's our democracy being up for grabs to the highest bidder, and Fascists who are able to come to power through legalized gerrymandering and secret black money. The way to defend our democracy is through government reforms, not through a bunch of people on the streets shooting AR-15s, because they disagree with certain laws. You are subject to the laws of the United States. You can't break them and use your gun, just because you feel disenfranchised. Period.

 

[writer0327]

Seems to me that access to guns really isn't the issue here. It's our democracy being up for grabs to the highest bidder, and Fascists who are able to come to power through legalized gerrymandering and secret black money. The way to defend our democracy is through government reforms, not through a bunch of people on the streets shooting AR-15s, because they disagree with certain laws. You are subject to the laws of the United States. You can't break them and use your gun, just because you feel disenfranchised. Period.

I get what you're saying but several things can be true at the same time. We can vote for reform, we can speak out against fascism and racism and we can also prepare ourselves for the day when talking about the problems doesn't work. We can do all of this and we should. Plan A and Plan B. Also 70 million people isn't a small portion of our citizens, that's a huge amount.

Also people do break the law because they feel disenfranchised, all the time. In fact, this entire past summer and deep into fall was filled with civil disobedience: riots, looting, vandalism, and even murder and death, all done by people who felt disenfranchised. And many with political power actually supported this. So you can say people can't break the law, but people, including government officials, break the law all the time.

Here's the real point. The Constitution that we all hold dear is just a piece of paper without any enforcement, and every law in the United States is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. So if the government has become corrupted or compromised, and enacts laws that take away your freedoms, how do you fight back against it? Or am I hearing there is simply no choice but to fall into the fetal position and acquiesce?

 

[Donner]

You assume people will fight back. They'll likely agree with the these so called new laws. Taking up arms against something you personally feel is wrong won't win you any freedoms.

The main point is actually voting for reforms. Your weapons will not work.

 

[writer0327]

You assume people will fight back. They'll likely agree with the these so called new laws. Taking up arms against something you personally feel is wrong won't win you any freedoms.

The main point is actually voting for reforms. Your weapons will not work.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

 

[Donner]

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

I feel sorry for you if you live your life in such constant fear.

 

[writer0327]

I feel sorry for you if you live your life in such constant fear.

Hey, its not living in constant fear, just living in reality. Why do you think several governments have amassed large nuclear armaments? Sadly and unfortunately, that's the reality of keeping peace in this world. Its no different for us as individual citizens. How do you defend your freedom from possible tyranny from others or from your own government? You have to be prepared to defend your freedom yourself, otherwise, are you even free?

 

[Donner]

Hey, its not living in constant fear, just living in reality. Why do you think several governments have amassed large nuclear armaments? Sadly and unfortunately, that's the reality of keeping peace in this world. Its no different for us as individual citizens. How do you defend your freedom from possible tyranny from others or from your own government? You have to be prepared to defend your freedom yourself, otherwise, are you even free?

Wasn't it Tony Stark who said sarcastically that nuclear deterrence calms everything right down?

It's not a good way to live, thinking you need bigger and better weapons to defend yourself. That literally never works.

 

[writer0327]

Wasn't it Tony Stark who said sarcastically that nuclear deterrence calms everything right down?

It's not a good way to live, thinking you need bigger and better weapons to defend yourself. That literally never works.

Tony Stark is a comic book character.

But...I respect your position. To each their own