The question needs to be asked "How can an AR15 defend against tyranny?"

If you want to flesh out this vague and incomplete argument, I'll listen. Not to dash your violent fantasies, but history shows that gun fans are more likely to be the tyrants than to stop them.

Hitler deregulated guns and lowered the age at which one could own a gun. White conservative gun owners didn’t stand up to Hitler, they supported him. Many fought and died in defense of tyranny. It took the allied forces to liberate Germany.

White conservative gun owners did not stand up to tyranny in the pre-civil war American South either. Many fought and died in support of tyranny. Again, it was an outside army that had to come in and liberate the south.

Not a great track record.

When NRA/Tea Party types talk about violently overthrowing the government, that is tyrant talk.

The historical example I've been thinking about is the Black Panthers. In the long run, MLK clearly did more for the plight of their people. However, in the immediate circumstance, it could be argued that they were legitimately defending themselves against oppression from law enforcement. I don't like violence, but to pretend there is no legitimacy to defense against tyranny by an armed populace ignores history. I'm a lefty, and I probably agree with most sensible proposals to mitigate the damage caused by guns. That said, "gun control" is a poorly defined term, and I'm hesitant to draft legislation immediately in the wake emotionally charged situations like this. It begs for unintended consequences and legislation that's grounded in emotion rather than empirics. Radical independence is, like it or not, an ingrained aspect of our culture. You can't, e.g., "take the guns" (ATF kicking down doors) without begging for a civil war. As your fellow unarmed citizen, I'd beg you not to go on that suicide mission. More reasonable measures, e.g. closing gun show loopholes, stricter CC licensure and possibly even bans on sales of new ARs are possible. However, I think it's important to grapple with the reality that there are already more guns out there than could ever be practically corralled.

Power in politics and the economy is violence. This nonsense at the beginning about how these protesters are totally wrong for hitting the douche-bag is completely blind to the reality of how power is used to solve political/economic disputes.

If students, in a completely symbolic act of opposition march on a university, they get beaten with clubs and attacked with chemical weapons. The people who support them decry the violence, the people who oppose them say they got what they asked for. No action is taken to reduce the disproportionate response by those in power. That's what happens on one side of the class war.

Conversely in a symbolic act of douchebagary some guy walks into a crowd of pissed off people and starts harassing them, with the explicit intent of getting his ass kicked. In this case a few of the protesters, in a non-coordinated fashion throw a couple punches, and other protesters intervene to break it up. Not only do the proponents of said douchbag claim that this somehow proves he is correct about how bad the protesters position is, but the supporters of the protesters also get their undergarments tied in knots expressing their disapproval. This is how the losing side in the class war decides to unilaterally disarm, so don't wonder why we are where we are.

Unions always come to power with the force of violence as a tool, just as workers are always subjugated to power elietes with violence as a tool, to pretend that one side in these disputes somehow has an obligation to be more "civilized", when being so means losing, is to buy hook line and sinker, the propaganda of their opponents.

It would be nice if these disputes could be handled peacefully, but the power elites of the world have learned from the passive resistance movements of the past, and immunized our society from the future use of non-violent civil disobedience. The only thing left is clubs in the street. The only question is if the protesters will have them as well as the police.

@Enzoblue

Like in any democracy, in a union , you get the representation you organize/vote for. Many Democracies are bad, I would even accept that most are. None the less, given the choice between a poorly lead union, where the workers can replace the union leaders, and an un-mediated well lead employer(tyranny), where the leader can be replaced at random by fate/the market, I choose the first.

100% correct. Because Obama tyranny succeeding has nothing to do with American Exceptionalism, private property rights, individual liberty and the Constitution. Barry shouldn't feel singled out; I hope China, Cuba, North Korea and other illicit regimes fail too.

Hey, what's this on Drudge?

"Income tax will exceed 50% in California, Hawaii, and New York City... Developing..".

Here's what would likely happen should Texas actually secede. It would prosper under Constitutional law while the rest of the states withered under obama tyranny. Mexico would not invade, Texas has nukes.

After 4 years, Texas' number one problem would be immigration, not from Mexico but from refugees from all the states run into the ground by liberals.

For the final act, it's the Despotic States of America that would declare war on Texas. The thought of sitting in a death panel waiting room while the state next door has freedom would be unbearable.

If you voted for Obama, you voted for greater tyranny and more staggering debt. It needn't be more complex than that.

If you think the faults of capitalism are bad, wait until communism hits its stride.

Texas can't secede from the Union because there is no longer a United States which obeys the Constitution.from which to secede.

The Socialist States of America have nothing to do with liberty, forcing health care on formerly-free citizens and printing 40 billion a month in fake money. Oh, and no one says a word about the new tyranny because KING Obama is Black.

Wow what are these guys thinking? That people can be convinced to submit to religious tyranny by a placard? Seriously: WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?
Inquiring minds need to know..

Chomsky had an interesting story about one of his books. It wasn't banned by a government or some entity of that, but it was stifled by a private company. I think it was Warner or something but anyways they owned a small book publishing company that was publishing one of his books. One of Warners execs saw an ad for the book and didn't like it. Than he ask for the book and read it and he REALLY didn't like it. So he decided even after the books were printed to close the publisher. Put the people out of work and Pulp Chomskys book and all the other books that were being published. So it wasn't Chomsky only that suffered but they took out tons of other books.

The reason is because a corporation is it's own Private tyranny that operates by it's own rules. They can't be allowed to do that in a democratic society, they should be stopped.

I concead your points.

As for your points here, none of them are against gun control. I'm not remotely for banning guns. Not for hunting, sport or even your paranoid home defence fantasies. I am against two self-entitled little gobshites parading a weapon that looks like an automatic assault rifle in the hopes of making some brave stand that they can post on youtube. Hell, I don't even think what they did should be illegal, I just think they're pathetic assholes.
On the other hand, I think that it's not unreasonable to exert a certain level of control over tools designed to kill.
BTW, I love this line:>> ^Buck:
Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions
Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but the real world does not work that way. Ideals are forced on people all the time. No-one is 100% free, but it's not tyranny, it's society. Otherwise we'd still have slavery, a wife could not accuse her husband of rape or any one of hundreds of ideals we enforce through laws.
Frankly, when I read bullshit like this, it makes me glad I don't live in a society where people are so fucking selfish that they think this kind of behaviour is even remotely ok.

THANK YOU.

I wasn't trusting my own experience and my own eyes.

Ah, the tyranny of the tag!

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
>> ^bareboards2:

marinespeak
Is the shoe melting or is the road melting?

The road. Tar is much more sensitive to heat than a boot. They would be sticking to the ground otherwise.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Irish O'bama is ignorant of Tea Party ideals. One cannot expect a Eurosocialist to understand a healthy fear of government power, the sole reason our American government is divided in TREES.

"It is said by the proponents of government-run health care that 47 million people go without health care in the United States. For example, during the so-called Cover the Uninsured Week event in 2008, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement declaring that this is the “time to reaffirm our commitment to access to quality, affordable health care for every American, including the 47 million who live in fear of even a minor illness because they lack health insurance…In the wealthiest nation on earth, it is scandalous that a single working American or a young child must face life without the economic security of health coverage.” This is more deceit.
"In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance.
About 9.5 million were not United States citizens.
Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage.
Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it.
Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months.
The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate."
--Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny


Even one humanbeing left without a basic health care is a travesty in a civilized country. This really baffles me, how can US even consider of not providing a basic human rights to all it's citizens. In my opinion the basic human needs are food, shelter and heatlhcare. The obejctive is that everyone can provide themselves with the first two while the healthcare is in the hands of professionals. You can claim that then goverment should provide free housing for all by employing professional constructor workers following the same logic that healthcare is done by professionals for free. Not all things are comparable, you can spend your night on a floor and be safe from the enviroment but you can't patch a guy up with staples and tape when he had a nasty fall and broke his leg.. Shelter can be variable as long as it fills the purpose but denying healthcare will kill humanbeings, you're fellow men and women.



We can take care of healthcare for all in every G20 country. And since we can do it, it's then mandatory. Like if we would get free unlimited energy logic will dictate that it will be ditributed to all, it never ends, it's free and there is no real reason to not give it out. Unless one man denys the service because of his own petty jealousy, anger, racism, or religious reasons. Those four things is what stops the regular US citizen from accepting a true humanitray cause, YOU DON*T WANT YOUR FELLOW HUMANBEING GETTING THE SAME RIGHTS AND PRVILEGES THAN YOU!!! It doesn't matter what your reasonings are, the trhuth is that you are an evil humanbeing that deliberately hurts all less fortunate than you. You get kick out of it, you enjoy looking at homeless, you spit on them and would no doubt just kill them in a whim, they are not humanbeings to you. Only your family and you are considered the right to get everything you want. No one else can, it's deminish your own ego.

This is my take on healthcare, anyone denying it is a monster. if you really want, we will leave you opt-out plan too, take care of your self if you like, hell we can even give you the money back you would normally spend for others (those cockraoches you know, people who don't deserve to live..)

>> ^Buck:

You are a troll who has no idea of what you are talking about.


Actually, I'm not and I do.

Your argument, that gun control takes guns out of the hands of citizens and into the arms of criminals has nothing to do with what's happening here.

As for your points here, none of them are against gun control. I'm not remotely for banning guns. Not for hunting, sport or even your paranoid home defence fantasies. I am against two self-entitled little gobshites parading a weapon that looks like an automatic assault rifle in the hopes of making some brave stand that they can post on youtube. Hell, I don't even think what they did should be illegal, I just think they're pathetic assholes.

On the other hand, I think that it's not unreasonable to exert a certain level of control over tools designed to kill.

BTW, I love this line:>> ^Buck:

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but the real world does not work that way. Ideals are forced on people all the time. No-one is 100% free, but it's not tyranny, it's society. Otherwise we'd still have slavery, a wife could not accuse her husband of rape or any one of hundreds of ideals we enforce through laws.

Frankly, when I read bullshit like this, it makes me glad I don't live in a society where people are so fucking selfish that they think this kind of behaviour is even remotely ok.

I copied my response from another discussion, some reasons to own firearms.

Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

2 million legal Canadian gun owners DID NOT kill anyone today, or yesterday or the day before...we have about 7 million guns...

You are a troll who has no idea of what you are talking about.

from ChaosEngine

You're right. Clearly the solution is to legalise rape, kidnapping, theft, assault and murder since people are doing it anyway.