No it won't. It will merely allow you the opportunity to divert the discussion to an irrelevant topic. Is this your intention? You may define the "duty of government" anyway you wish and it STILL won't change my argument on this, because my point was in that comparing the function of government with the act of slavery is simply contrived hyperbole, pure and simple. Why don't you try addressing THAT? Well, you have the pieces correct, but somehow you still can't seem to put them both together. Perhaps you could explain what gun owners fighting non-gun owners has to do with slavery? That's what relevance is all about, friend. Your erroneous claim does not help you here. I myself could claim that eventually ALL world countries will be full Democracies and my claim would not be any more valid than your own. The point is that we are not slaves in this country even though a large percentage of us do not own guns. A real shocker, eh? You are using a false claim to support an irrelevant argument. It looks like a lose-lose to me. No matter how many times you repeat this, it's still a false premise, and thus no valid conclusion can be logically drawn from it. Says you? Are they slaves in Japan? If not, then his (and your) argument is without merit. Relevance, friend. Try now. The Egyptian people rose up and defeated an oppressive regime without the use of guns. Isn't that precisely what you claimed could not happen? No I didn't. Don't you self-edit? Look below. There is no need to "take" what I say in any manner other than what I specifically wrote, friend. I enclosed my post above so you can once again see your error. He said that "slavery to the state is on the rise." This statement begs the question "what slavery" which you have made a somewhat clumsy attempt at, but more importantly, "where and how is it rising"? You utterly missed this, but then again, strangely, you WERE answering for someone else.
Slavery was in fact a function of government at one point, the idea that it could not come back because of the word "democracy" is simply silly. For starters, we are not friends nor are you superior in any way shape or form..so stop with the attitude. In the eventuality that government begins to use force against its own people an armed populace is the only recourse. "To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character. ---Alexander Hamilton" Your approach ignores human nature and is rather naieve. History is on my side though...not yours. Throughout history every "democratic" form of government has been overthrown or deteriorated into tyranny. It is simply the recognition of human nature. Oh? We might not be slaves in the traditional sense...but your liberties are certainly constrained quite a bit by what you would probably call "function of government". Your assertions matter not. Your assertions are getting tiresome. They are certainly debt slaves, as are Americans. There were many guns, remember...it was the military that finally stepped in and caused the regime change. You asked "what slavery?". I answered you. How are you not understanding this?
You can boo hoo about things and demand that people consider that inane ideology that stops free thinking, but that matters not. Those 49% can decide on any 'money' that they want. Its only a medium of exchange and store of value after all. But, as I said, keep going. I sometimes think badly of the NRA foot soldiers, but your approach is making them look like pals of logic. Refreshing for arguments sake!
Actually, some slaves had guns and until the 1960's the only people with guns in Arkansas prisons were the trustees. What most slaves were not allowed to do was to learn to read. That's why the First Amendment contains free speech and the Second Amendment pertains to guns. And the amendment that pertains to abortion, wait, wait, wait for it.
What I find silly is that you are willing to ignore the progression of human civil society from Neanderthal to present in favor of claiming a regression theory that defies logic and history. Pity, and I thought we were getting along so well, too. I'll just have to live with it, I guess. Rubbish. Try using critical thinking for once. Our government used force against Blacks in the 60's and yet they rose up non-violently and gained full concessions. Gandhi did the same in India and the Egyptians did the same as well. For you to use absolutist terms such as "an armed populace is the only recourse" only shows a lack of critical thinking. "human nature"? Slavery is "human nature"? Really? You can keep repeating this falsehood, but it won't become any more valid. If history were truly on your side, then it would be a small matter to substantiate this bold assertion, no? Try it. Ahhhhhhh. You finally admit that the use of the term "slavery" in a conversation about gun ownership is nothing more than simple hyperbole. It's taken a while, but you have finally come around, I see. Congratulations. Truth hurts, eh? I suppose you could always actually support your baseless premise that all Democracies deteriorate into tyranny. I won't hold my breath though. Nice dodge. We weren't talking about the National debt, were we? We're talking about gun ownership and slavery. The Japanese example alone discredits your argument. Oh please. The Egyptians themselves were responsible for the change in government there as were the Tunisians for theirs. Dishonesty doesn't suit you friend. Again, more importantly, "where and how is it rising"? You utterly missed this. After all, this is what he had claimed, correct?
You really think human civil society has progressed that much? Our entire society is still predicated on the fact that certain people are above others. Seems like the same (*)(*)(*)(*) on a different day to me. Your willingness to ignore human nature in favor of this utopia you feel exists is just silly. The blacks had quite a bit of help in the way of political pressure from the north. Egyptians had the army and Gandhi....well I truthfully never cared much about India. You obviously feel like peaceful protest will do the job against a government unwilling to listen. I will take my guns. Yes...the idea of a hierarchy is embedded in human nature. Ok, show me a form of democracy that has lasted more than 500 years. Hell, show me a government that has remained stable for that long. I would still use the term slavery, I just prefer to not be as literal as yourself. Splitting hairs in the manner you prefer does the debate no good. Show me one that has lasted 500 years....or hell 300 years. A debt slave is still a slave. A debt slave is as much a slave as any other slave throughout history. A slave is a slave is a slave. I notice you failed to mention Libiya....they tried the Egyptian method...but in the face of a government that did not care they were facing death. Interesting. Also, the Egyptians had the army...without the armies backing Mubarak would still be around. Where and How? All around you in the form of monetary slavery.
Lest we forget,.... your argument is predicated on the fact that our civil society will revert to the use of slavery. I reject this notion. None of which is a compelling argument against my own. The fact remains that they did not use guns in spite of the fact that you claimed it couldn't be done without them. There's a little egg on your face,... there, no there,.... you got it. It's good to see your big enough to admit that your absolutist claim that "an armed populace is the only recourse", was erroneous. Just as I thought. You don't have any examples. OK, you would still choose to use the hyperbole as it relates to "slavery". Your choice, but if you were truly interested in a fulfilling debate you'd also know that the use of hyperbole is not very conducive to that end. At least you admit to the inflammatory nature of the term and that is progress. What an odd argument you make here. You claim that because you can't find a Democracy that has lasted more than 500 years, that this means that they all will deteriorate into tyranny? Really? Not only this, but that they will revert to the use of slavery. Wow. It looks like rational thought has escaped you. Now you're just being silly. They're "debt slaves" because they don't have guns? And we're "debt slaves" in spite of the fact we DO have guns. Are you somehow building up the "big finish" with this nonsense? Libya doesn't hurt my argument at all. I never denied that guns have been used successfully in rebellions. It was YOU who denied the possibility of success WITHOUT them. Oh, OK. Let's ignore the people's place in that matter. More deception, eh? Pity.
Then we reject each others notions. Grand. Show me where I claimed that rebellion was impossible without the use of guns. My only claim has been that an armed populace is the only recourse against a government unwilling to listen. Syria and Libiya make that point for me. There a little egg on your face as well.
Danct, there are examples of people rising up and demanding rights and in turn acquiring them yes. As there are examples of times when it took force. There is little to do with primitive weapons against an armed state if the scenario came about which required force to effectively subdue the oppressors.
I'm glad you have mollified your stance to a more rational position. You have, however made an inartful observation in your paragragh above. You made reference to a "required force" that is totally subjective and inconsequential to our conversation. Your first sentence above correctly points this out. The fact remains that your statement that "an armed populace is the only recourse" is erroneous. There is simply no such absolute.
I apologize. I did indeed mix you up with another member. As point of fact, my observation as to your inconsistency in your post stands. I see you did not address this. You made reference to a "required force" that is totally subjective and inconsequential to your first point. I'm glad you disagree with the other poster in his assertion that "an armed populace is the only recourse" against an oppressive government. It's an absurd assertion that has no historical value.
Yes, I mentioned possible scenarios that may require force to subdue an oppressor(s). Suggesting the same outcome would have been procured through passivity is subjective as well dear fellow.
I suggested no such thing, my good man. Contrary to many anti-controllers here, I am not an absolutist, therefor my response was in fact, NOT subjective as was yours. Glad to help.
You do not have to suggest something to be subjective for something to be subjective. Your stance that the american revolution or any other struggle against an oppressive state could be won without taking up arms is subjective. There have been examples of such peaceful struggles, however it is entirely your opiniom that all of them could be won by such means. Thats what makes it subjective. To say that mayber Gaydaffi might have just given up without an armed uprising is ludicrous. As are many other examples of great endeavors to overthrow unjust and malicious bastards.
Did you not read my response to this above? I explained that I am NOT an absolutist which directly addresses your false claim that I have said that ANY government can be peacefully overthrown. I did not say nor imply this which makes your whole argument one big Straw Man fallacy. Sorry. You seem to have forgotten that the argument wasn't whether ANY government could be peacefully overthrown, but rather the converse absolute that is equally invalid; that the ONLY recourse to an oppressive government is armed rebellion. You conveniently missed that I was addressing the latter falsehood. My stance on this has been entirely objective in that I have observed the historical realities of the other member's stance. I'm not sure how all this got by you.
It hasnt 'gotten by me'. What I posted was my response to what you posted. Its simply better to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it. I believe your initial argument delt directly with the wording of the OP, which was adressed pages ago to anyone who had qualms with any wording and was viewing the slogan in absolutes. What is your major point of contention danct?
On the contrary, I have shown that you did not. And "One in the hand is worth two in the bush". Both equally irrelevant to this conversation. Nice try though. You appear to be confused, friend. If you had a problem with my position in a different conversation, then you should have posted a response THERE. Instead you chose to respond to a different issue HERE where my position is very clear and made clearer by myself for you personally. I see you have chosen to ignore this reality AND your use of a Straw Man fallacy in favor of obfuscation. Congratulations.
No danct, all you do is accuse people of not understanding with no clear explanation as to back up the claim. Then you harp on it endlessly. When you, in a fit of haste, confused me with another poster I simply said I think you have me confused with another and moved on. You did sincerely have me mixed up with another but it was no big deal danct. So whats your problem, im not confused about anything and your still harping about nothing. Where the hell did you get that? What bush? How old are you danct? If you disagree with the adage from my last post thats fine but you cannot dictate my values by telling me whats relevan. It was very much relevant in the context of this past topic of occasions where force have been required to overthrow malicious bastards. It was this thread, imasking what your initial point of contention was with the OP. You forgot who I was just a few days ago so im certain you will afford this courtesy As what I want to know happened over this past summer. This discussion has been going on for several months now danct. Im asking what your take is. You have called things irrelevant and accused others of a misunderstanding and called People friend. Do you think guns are meant for the military only? Should there be stronger restrictions on civilian ownership? Or do you simply disagree with the OP? If so, on what premis?
Now I'm afraid that you're coming across a little shrill friend. I did indeed back up my claim. I said: "I explained that I am NOT an absolutist which directly addresses your false claim that I have said that ANY government can be peacefully overthrown. I did not say nor imply this which makes your whole argument one big Straw Man fallacy. Sorry. You seem to have forgotten that the argument wasn't whether ANY government could be peacefully overthrown, but rather the converse absolute that is equally invalid; that the ONLY recourse to an oppressive government is armed rebellion. You conveniently missed that I was addressing the latter falsehood. My stance on this has been entirely objective in that I have observed the historical realities of the other member's stance. I'm not sure how all this got by you." You had accused me of a stance I clearly had NOT taken. Something you as yet still have not acknowledged. At least I had the courtesy to apologize to you for confusing you with another member. Ha! I guess that went right over your head. Sorry. I was simply using an equally mind-numbing and irrelevant slogan as your own. I'm sure you'll admit that they have little practical usefulness in a reasoned discussion. But all of that is public knowledge, friend. A simple search could help you here, but of course you chose a specific pretense to attack me here which I have addressed for you. Apparently you have chosen to ignore this now in favor of distracting us with a more ethereal and broad philosophical question to myself. Interesting strategy. Ha! You make it sound like a slurring insult! Are we all not friends here? I think my position has been clear, no? I wish I could take credit, but perhaps the best response to your OP was here which I registered a full agreement to.
I do not recall saying you said anything. Your the one employing strawman. Ok, this does not back up any claims against the right to bear arms, therefor its counter productive for you to harp on it. No, I have invoked a few different points of view while explaning myself. two in the bush or whatever you said was just funny danct, imwondering where you heard it. When you attach your poor sarcasm to it then you are being disingenuous. Oh thats right, we are brainwashed and are conditioned to think owning a gun equates to manhood. Yeah, im a three time convicted felon and cannot even own a gun, I suppose it didnt work on me.
On her slave-freeing forays into Maryland and Delaware, Harriet Tubman carried a Colt Dragoon pistol, given her by an Abolitionist in Philadelphia. She claimed she used it on a highwayman in Delaware.
It's a pity that feel a need for falsehoods. I'll quote your very words:"Your stance that the american revolution or any other struggle against an oppressive state could be won without taking up arms is subjective." For you to now deny your own words is frankly pathetic. This is not my "stance". I have never said nor implied such a thing. Sorry. Oh shame, friend. We can see a pattern now of purposeful deception on your part. I must ask 'why'? Surely if your position were strong, it would stand on its own without the need for such low brow silliness. You know as well as the rest of us that the discussion that you replied to, and the very OP that you yourself started for that matter had little to nothing to do with "any claims against the right to bear arms". This is a lone product of your imagination, I'm afraid. If you misstate my position, as you did (and which I supported with your own quotes) then it is entirely relevant for me to bring this to your attention. Much as you might protest, you could do your reputation here more good by admitting your error rather than partaking in these deceptions as they inevitably build upon each other. Oh, your hole is getting deeper and deeper.... I thought it to be a rather mainstream phrase. The old 'bait and switch' eh? You asked me for my position on your OP which I had already provided for you in this thread. When I provided you substantiations of this, your reply is scorn. This is a predictable response from someone who only asked about my position to divert from the fact that your position on the current topic is erroneous and fallacious. Did you really think that no one would notice? Whether or not you ever owned a gun is irrelevant to whether or not we have a gun culture in this country. Nice try though, friend.
If you were arguing against the need for guns in a scenario to supress tyrannical states, then it follows you would be suggesting the obverse. Continuously saying things are fallacious wont help you here old sport. Your alleged "mainstream" phrases and what not will not suffice. I asked about your position so we could actually progress somewhere other than you accusing others of a misunderstanding. You support claims that corporations or whatever are brainwashing people into thinking they need guns to be a man despite the fact that most people do not own guns. Doesnt sound like effective brainwashing to me danct.
