patrick.net

JodyChunder says

Granted, I don't read every thread, but nobody on Pat.net particularly strikes me as a basher-of-dog's-brains.

I don't know - there are some posters who get so angry I can see them popping a vessel or two. I'm thinking they take their anger out on the wife or dog.

elliemae says

I don't know - there are some posters who get so angry I can see them popping a vessel or two. I'm thinking they take their anger out on the wife or dog.

I just throw bottles at the wall...the neighbor's, not mine.

elliemae says

I don't know - there are some posters who get so angry I can see them popping a vessel or two. I'm thinking they take their anger out on the wife or dog.

See the problem is, they never had CRUNK_BEAR as teacher to mellow them out.

Homeboy says

How many tyrants did this country have since the second amendment? How many Putin's are in charge of USA? How often did Sadam Husseins ran our country?

Some people just don't appreciate what they have. Bunch of entitled brats who think that everything in this world is given to us, not earned.

FortWayne says

How many tyrants did this country have since the second amendment?

Two: Bush II and Obama.

Both of them have committed crimes against humanity such as torture, false imprisonment without trial or appeal, rape and sexual humiliation as punishment and interrogation methods, assassination of civilians without trial or oversight including children and U.S. citizens. Those are acts of tyranny. Not everyone in a society has to become a victim of tyranny for the tyranny to exist.

elliemae says

I don't know - there are some posters who get so angry I can see them popping a vessel or two. I'm thinking they take their anger out on the wife or dog.

In some cases, I think these are the same.

The kidnapper was exactly the militia / survivalist type that argues the Second Amendment lets us protect ourselves from tyranny.

Dan8267 says

The kidnapper was exactly the militia / survivalist type that argues the Second Amendment lets us protect ourselves from tyranny.

Let's assume guns can't protect us from tyranny,,,,what can?

Dan8267 says

Two: Bush II and Obama.

Both of them have committed crimes against humanity such as torture, false imprisonment without trial or appeal, rape and sexual humiliation as punishment and interrogation methods, assassination of civilians without trial or oversight including children and U.S. citizens. Those are acts of tyranny. Not everyone in a society has to become a victim of tyranny for the tyranny to exist.

Far cry from a local dictator that most countries had. Our government has become bigger, it's natural course that power concentrates in a single entity over time while liberty yields, but we have not had dictators. Nor Obama, nor Bush have the ability to come after US citizens in mass.

Events like "Killing Fields" or ethnic cleansing don't happen in US.

errc says

Let's assume guns can't protect us from tyranny,,,,what can?

The determination not to BECOME tyrants or enable it.

Tyrannies are not imposed by some malevolent external alien entity globbing onto the head of a leader, who then hypnotizes the populace. AFAIK every last one of them has required vigorous support of a large chunk of the population. You'll always find someone even today who says Mussolini was misunderstood, or that Pol Pot or Milosevic were doing unpleasant work that needed doing.

Dan8267 says

The kidnapper was exactly the militia / survivalist type that argues the Second Amendment lets us protect ourselves from tyranny.

One man does not speak for the millions of others. How many others do you see kidnapping someone into their bunkers?

Some of the school shooters were all young liberals, I don't see anyone saying all liberals are going around shooting kids up...

Vicente says

You'll always find someone even today who says Mussolini was misunderstood....

continuing the theme, many Russians revere Stalin, and Russia re-elected a president who sometimes defends Stalin (though other times criticizing). Americans heard all about the Pentagon Papers, then re-elected Nixon; just to prove that wasn't an aberration, they heard all about the Iraq War including Abu Ghraib, then re-elected W.

FortWayne says

How many tyrants did this country have since the second amendment? How many Putin's are in charge of USA? How often did Sadam Husseins ran our country?

Iraq had more guns than almost any country, per capita.

Lithuania has less than 1 per 100,000 citizens. Gun ownership therefore CAUSES tyranny, right?

errc says

Let's assume guns can't protect us from tyranny,,,,what can?

I'd love to get an answer to that question. I don't know the answer, yet. However, I know that the first step to getting that answer is asking the question. And that means accepting that brute force isn't the solution.

FortWayne says

Nor Obama, nor Bush have the ability to come after US citizens in mass.

And that illustrates the fundamental difference between your worldview and mine. To you, tyranny is about numbers, how many people's rights are violated. To me, tyranny is about degree, how severely people's rights are violated.

These two world views are completely different. But to the person who's being tortured, or to that person's family, the number of people isn't as important as the degree.

FortWayne says

Events like "Killing Fields" or ethnic cleansing don't happen in US.

Tell that to the Native Americans.

Also, tell that to the African Americans who were forced to undergo sterilization.

By this standard, every nation, past, present, and future, has a tyrannical government.

Got it.

Dan8267 says

To you, tyranny is about numbers, how many people's rights are violated

Is it tyranny if people choose it? Or aren't upset by it?

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around....

Vicente says

AFAIK every last one of them has required vigorous support of a large chunk of the population.

Exactly. Tyranny is almost always caused by the majority accepting and even advocating the violation of rights of a minority, typically less than 10% of the population because that small of a minority can't fight back politically.

Even in Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, or modern day China, the majority of people were not imprisoned . Even ancient Rome illustrated this principle.

FortWayne says

One man does not speak for the millions of others. How many others do you see kidnapping someone into their bunkers?

True, not all nuts are survivalist nuts and not all survivalists are nuts, but a far greater percentage of survivalists are nuts compared to the general population. They are a bit outside of the bell curve.

Kevin says

By this standard, every nation, past, present, and future, has a tyrannical government.

Got it.

I agree, government as we know it, is inherently tyrannical. I came to this realization from inside of a people cage at county prison, after peace officers illegally entered my property and took me into custody against my will, for possession of a small bag of dried plant matter from my garden,,,,

Land of the free, imagine that!

CL says

FortWayne says

How many tyrants did this country have since the second amendment? How many Putin's are in charge of USA? How often did Sadam Husseins ran our country?

Iraq had more guns than almost any country, per capita.

Lithuania has less than 1 per 100,000 citizens. Gun ownership therefore CAUSES tyranny, right?

Point taken. I don't think high gun ownership makes tyranny more or less likely or severe. Nor do I think gun ownership makes a society at large safer or less safe. There does not seem to be any measurable correlation one way or the other when comparing all the nation states of the world.

However, I do think that there is a strong correlation and causality between culture and both safety and tyranny. Wherever human life is valued and economic well being is equitable (read high wages for labor, relatively even distribution of wealth), violence and tyranny are less common and less accepted. Where labor and life are cheap, violence and tyranny are common and people think there is no alternative.

Kevin says

By this standard, every nation, past, present, and future, has a tyrannical government.

Got it.

Not even close. Not even for the past. I sure as hell hope not for the future.

CL says

Dan8267 says

To you, tyranny is about numbers, how many people's rights are violated

Is it tyranny if people choose it? Or aren't upset by it?

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around....

If a single person doesn't choose to be
- gang raped by police
- tortured
- imprisoned without charges
- assassinated
but is, then yes, it's tyranny.

Tyranny is always a crime against an individual. How many individuals is less important than the fact that it happens and those responsible are not held accountable.

Dan8267 says

Kevin says

By this standard, every nation, past, present, and future, has a tyrannical government.

Got it.

Not even close. Not even for the past. I sure as hell hope not for the future.

Name one government that hasn't presided over a period where some group was not treated according to the conditions mentioned in your original criteria. You definitely can't count any European country, the US, any asian country, any south american country, australia, canada, mexico, cuba, the middle east, or most of africa.

Either tyranny needs a higher standard to be classified as such, or every government is tyrannical.

Dan8267 says

Wherever human life is valued and economic well being is equitable (read high wages for labor, relatively even distribution of wealth), violence and tyranny are less common and less accepted. Where labor and life are cheap, violence and tyranny are common and people think there is no alternative.

I think this is an excellent point. There's a lot more to power than the penis extender. There is wealth, justice, fairness, equality. These seemingly esoteric concepts would be more likely to predict tyranny than gun ownership.Dan8267 says

If a single person doesn't choose to be

- gang raped by police

- tortured

- imprisoned without charges

- assassinated

but is, then yes, it's tyranny.

Speaking of esoteric, I was just getting all Zen on the concept. Since tyranny necessarily requires that someone opposes, if no one opposes, is it still tyranny?

Government intrusion to stop "terrorism" gets a free pass. If one objects, is it then tyranny or democracy? Who defines what's "too far"?

We have rational restrictions on our rights...no yelling "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse and all that. If one thinks the right is absolute and it is denied by our courts, is that tyranny?

Or is it limited to bodily violations?

Kevin says

Name one government that hasn't presided over a period where some group was not treated according to the conditions mentioned in your original criteria. You definitely can't count any European country, the US, any asian country, any south american country, australia, canada, mexico, cuba, the middle east, or most of africa.

No shit if we include the Dark Ages. But just because Denmark was a tyrannical kingdom in the Middle Ages, doesn't mean the modern government is tyrannical.

But here's the most important point. You think that tyranny is some kind of binary condition. Either a country is absolute tyranny or it's not tyranny at all. I believe that tyranny, like all evils, can be throttled. There are degrees of tyranny just like there are degrees of slavery, degrees of genocide, degrees of rape, even degrees of murder.

The United States certainly has more tyranny in it than we should tolerate. If a violent uprising had a chance of success -- which it certainly doesn't -- then there is already sufficient cause to uprise and overthrow all the tyrants (president, Congress, lobbyists) from power and force a rewriting of the Constitution. However, such an uprising is doomed to fail no matter what the pro-gun group says about guns protecting us from tyranny.

CL says

There's a lot more to power than the penis extender.

WTF?

Dan8267 says

CL says

There's a lot more to power than the penis extender.

WTF?

Guns.

CL says

Dan8267 says

CL says

There's a lot more to power than the penis extender.

WTF?

Guns.

Oh, I was afraid this thread was taking a sudden turn to a different direction.

It's true that some of the appeal of guns is due to insecure men and women needing to feel empowered and guns give them a false sense of security.

However, the desire for guns is much more than that. Some people just like guns because they are fun to shoot. Of course, that's what first person shooter games are for. All the fun and no one gets hurt.

Dan8267 says

And that illustrates the fundamental difference between your worldview and mine. To you, tyranny is about numbers, how many people's rights are violated. To me, tyranny is about degree, how severely people's rights are violated.

I'm not saying it's perfect out here, but it's better than elsewhere. Struggle against oppression is something we'll always have government or no government. It's human nature for some humans to come kill and take what they want from others. Guns make private property and life easier to defend.

FortWayne says

Guns make private property and life easier to defend.

Oh, so now it's no longer about overthrowing tyrants; it's about keeping your "stuff". Your values just sort of blow in the wind, don't they?

Homeboy says

Oh, so now it's no longer about overthrowing tyrants; it's about keeping your "stuff". Your values just sort of blow in the wind, don't they?

Are you just off the boat or something kid? This is America, the land of personal property and rights. It is about both, we don't want dictators, and we want our life, liberty, and property protected. It's written right into the constitution in the 5th amendment.

All of our amendments are intertwined, if you take one away, you can take away all the others. Guns are the last resort.

FortWayne says

All of our amendments are intertwined, if you take one away, you can take away all the others. Guns are the last resort.

I know!

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

If they infringe on our speech, how will we protest the quartering!!!

"All of our amendments are intertwined, if you take one away, you can takeaway all the others. Guns are the last resort."

There is no amendment granting you the right to use a gun to protect your "stuff". Funny, the gun nuts scream about not taking away any part of the bill of rights, but then would happily take away the first clause of the second.

Be honest, you don't really give a shit about tyranny. You just want to have a gun because it makes it feel like your penis isn't quite so small.

CL says

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

If they infringe on our speech, how will we protest the quartering!!!

In many countries if you create a business that competes with someone who is politically connected government simply comes and takes your stuff. 5th amendment specifically does not allow government to come by and take your stuff without just compensation.

And 2nd amendment is there for you when government stops respecting your first, fifth, or any other.

FortWayne says

In many countries if you create a business that competes with someone who is politically connected government simply comes and takes your stuff. 5th amendment specifically does not allow government to come by and take your stuff without just compensation.

Who says they have to take your stuff to get what they want.

Dan8267 says

The only person who defied the state using any kind of physical force and had any kind of success -- and by success, I mean inflicting some damage before committing suicide -- was the great, late Marvin Heemeyer, the tank hero of Granby, Colorado.

This guy was so awesome, I'd have his babies if I could.

But even his success was minimal and obtained using a home built tank, not a gun.

FortWayne says

In many countries if you create a business that competes with someone who is politically connected government simply comes and takes your stuff. 5th amendment specifically does not allow government to come by and take your stuff without just compensation.

And 2nd amendment is there for you when government stops respecting your first, fifth, or any other.

But the 3rd doesn't rest on the 1st.

In any case, I don't think quartering is coming back. Maybe the 2nd should be considered vestigial like the 3rd.

They aren't really dependent on each other. Like Dan said, I think our collective conscience and sense of freedom, fairness and whatnot are probably what eliminated our fear of quartering.

CL says

They aren't really dependent on each other. Like Dan said, I think our collective conscience and sense of freedom, fairness and whatnot are probably what eliminated our fear of quartering.

They are. Freedom of speech is only good if government can't put you permanently in prison without trial. Business only can grow if government can't shut it down without reason. And bill of rights is a representation of that collective thought.

You change the bill of rights and you'll see dictatorship set in pretty quick, that train is never late in a morally corrupt society like ours. People always tend to give up freedoms for a little false sense of security. At least half the board on patrick.net would give up 2nd amendment.

And I remember when 5th amendment became a problem for CA government and their abuse of Eminent Domain. They would have provided no fair compensation if they could simply take your property and give it to their best crony. But they couldn't, because our constitution prevents that type of abuse.