Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineACN45
Stranger
Registered: 11/28/05
Posts: 160
Last seen: 18 years, 1 month
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: wilshire]
    #5472631 - 04/02/06 10:36 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

come on now. alota people just seem to be thumping their chest with an alomst redneck bravado. "aint no po's commin in hurr cause I got my 45 magnum" what the fuck is that? do you think the cops are really afraid of a gun carrying person? they might be nervous of a gunfight but if they want to get you they are going to get you. And everyone keeps using this analogy that they need guns to ward off the "tyranny" if the us government became tyrannical, which it is very close to becomming, what would a shotgun do against a tank? there are no guns in japan and they have hardly any deaths due to firearms. That doesnt mean robberies are happening all over the place there. The idea of illegalizing guns means that NO ONE has them. That means there will be no robber with a gun busting through your front door because there are no guns. If you have such big balls then just get a knife and stab the fuck. The idea that you need guns is archaic and a main cause of crime in this country. Now you all are right that it would be harder for a government to take over its people if they have guns but in this day and age with the technology difference between the military and just a dude carrying a gun it is close to pointless. If you are really worried about this then you should create legislation for a real militia paid for with your own tax money. This militia will be privately run with elected generals and so forth with tanks and all that shit. That way there will be REAL protection from the government AND you can rest safe at night knowing that you dont have your gun with you. Just an idea, but anythings better than thinking guns are gonna protect you from a tyrannical government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: ACN45]
    #5472716 - 04/02/06 11:12 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

come on now. alota people just seem to be thumping their chest with an alomst redneck bravado. "aint no po's commin in hurr cause I got my 45 magnum" what the fuck is that?

that's not what i'm saying though and i wish the rambos would quiet down too.

if the us government became tyrannical, which it is very close to becomming, what would a shotgun do against a tank?

nothing consequential. that's why you don't attack tanks with shotguns. you use small arms against enemy infantry.

it is not time for violent revolution in the united states. an armed revolution cannot succeed, and there is no purpose for it anyway, as long as there remains a democratic order.

there are no guns in japan and they have hardly any deaths due to firearms.

they had hardly any deaths due to guns before banning them. their culture is different from ours. the misconception that firearm prohibition reduces violent crime is outside the scope of this thread, but if you believe that banning guns reduces violent crime, and you have some evidence to support it, start a new thread with it.

The idea of illegalizing guns means that NO ONE has them.

no, it means that only criminals and the government have them.

Just an idea, but anythings better than thinking guns are gonna protect you from a tyrannical government.

no one has said that. are you really reading this thread? guns help prevent tyranny. they do not provide a guarantee against it. the single most important thing is a culture that respects liberty and is willing to stand up for it. no amount of guns are going to make a free society out of a culture that does not value liberty.

guns may help prevent tyranny in two ways:

1. they facilitate violent revolution or resistance if all peaceful methods have been exhausted.

2. they allow a country's private citizens to effectively contribute to the defense of the nation from a foreign aggressor, reducing the likelihood of an invasion and reducing it's chances of succeeding should one occur.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: ACN45]
    #5472762 - 04/02/06 11:24 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

you know... if we were talking hypotheticals, maybe it would be different. no one however is saying, "it's never happened before, but for these reasons, i believe that private gun ownership has the potential to help prevent or reduce tyranny".

no, what i'm talking about has actually happened. there have been popular revolutions against despotic governments. there have been invaders expelled from nations with the help of armed civilian-soldiers. it's a matter of historical record. the position that private gun ownership cannot help a body of citizens defend itself from tyranny is ludicrous for several reasons, but perhaps the biggest one is that this has actually happened many times.

when you claim that guerrilla warfare does not work, or that armed resistance groups are ineffective, you are ignoring historical fact that proves otherwise


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: wilshire]
    #5473198 - 04/03/06 01:22 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

that is the "logic" alex213 is using

No it isn't. That is some load of nonsense you have made up with no basis in reality.

while ignoring a very simple question that blankly exposes the absurdity of his posi

What is this question?

1) Do you deny drug users are oppressed in America?
2) Do you deny drug users have access to guns in America?
3) Why has gun ownership not ended this oppression?

You've ignored these questions for 9 pages now.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: wilshire]
    #5473211 - 04/03/06 01:29 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

no, what i'm talking about has actually happened. there have been popular revolutions against despotic governments. there have been invaders expelled from nations with the help of armed civilian-soldiers

This is a completely different subject to whether there should be gunshops on the corner and you know it. People can get arms without there being widespread public gun ownership.

it's a matter of historical record

Then you will be able to give examples. But remember these revolutions must have been carried out entirely with legally bought guns in public stores. Nothing like the Vietcong or the Iraqi insurgency or Afghanistan, or Russia, or China where guns were illegally obtained.

but perhaps the biggest one is that this has actually happened many times.


Then you will be able to provide an example. Guns legally bought from gun stores remember - nothing else or your argument falls apart.

you are ignoring historical fact that proves otherwise


Please provide us with this "historical fact". List me all the revolutions carried out solely by the revolutionaries going into gunshops on the high street and buying legally available guns. I await your list with interest.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Alex213]
    #5473546 - 04/03/06 04:37 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
The answer is self-evident, unless one denies reality when formulating his opinions.

Then you'll be able to answer the following with examples proving your case:

Which minority is easiest to persecute:

a) Armed drug users
b) Unarmed drug users.




b) Unarmed drug users. Ask any police officer whether he would rather hassle unarmed citizens or armed citizens. Better yet, read this chart of law enforcement officers killed with guns vs. other methods. Like I said, self evident. Really, you have to be totally disconnected from reality to dispute the fact that armed citizens are a bit harder to control and kill than unarmed citizens.

But government is your friend you say? Here is a sampling of cases of people killed by police officers


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Autonomous]
    #5473583 - 04/03/06 05:05 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

b) Unarmed drug users

So why is America one of, if not the biggest player in persecuting drug users?

It is self-evident that if armed drug users made any difference whatsoever then american drug users would live under tolerant drug laws. You have to be disconnected from reality not to realise this.

But government is your friend you say?

No, I don't say.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDreamer987
The VerbalHerman Munster
Female

Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 5,326
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Alex213]
    #5474183 - 04/03/06 11:10 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Drug dealers/hard drug users often carry a gun for protection.
However, even if this gun was perfectly legal, using it in conjuntion with illeagle drugs makes it a felony. 5 year mandatory minimum in many states.
Thats just possesing drugs, and a fire-arm at the same time. Intent to distribute will add another 5 years.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDreamer987
The VerbalHerman Munster
Female

Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 5,326
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Alex213]
    #5474197 - 04/03/06 11:12 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

P.S. you are like talking to a brick wall. We have answered many of your ridiculous hypothetical questions, and you keep pretending like you don't hear.
I give up.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedaimyo
Monticello

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Dreamer987]
    #5474208 - 04/03/06 11:16 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

This thread was a lost cause from the moment it was thought up. Gun debate never gets anywhere. Anti-gun people need something to blame other than society, and nothing will change their minds.


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Alex213]
    #5474302 - 04/03/06 11:52 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
b) Unarmed drug users

So why is America one of, if not the biggest player in persecuting drug users?



You asked, "Which minority is easiest to persecute"
I gave you the only rational answer.

Quote:

It is self-evident that if armed drug users made any difference whatsoever then american drug users would live under tolerant drug laws. You have to be disconnected from reality not to realise this.



Let's recap for those with ADD (hint, hint)...
Quote:

wilshire said:
answer my question alex213. which is an easier population to subdue under tyranny:

1. one with firearms
2. one which is otherwise identical to the first, but without firearms

?



Quote:

To which Autonomous replied:
The answer is self-evident, unless one denies reality when formulating his opinions.



The above statement stands unrefuted.

Quote:

No, I don't say.



But you certainly do make it seem that you believe that the law abiding are safer disarmed and at the mercy of people in government, people whom you wish to see unrestrained save for their demonstrably imperfect moral sensibilities and the limits of their desires to accumulate and exercise power. With all the abuse of the power now granted to governments, why would you think that giving more power to the governments and taking it away from the law abiding people would improve the lot of your fellow man? Do you think that only people with whom you agree with will be in positions of power? Do you believe that there will never arise any more tyrants? Do you believe that Pol Pot, Hitler, Caesar, Pinochet, Stalin and Idi Amin are historical aberrations and we have seen the last of such characters?


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Autonomous]
    #5474491 - 04/03/06 12:43 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

You asked, "Which minority is easiest to persecute"
I gave you the only rational answer.


And I pointed out the error in your answer. American drug users are subject to some of the most stringent persecution of any country.

The above statement stands unrefuted.



Are you honestly claiming the fact that american drug users are armed has made the slightest difference to their degree of persecution?

You cannot be serious.

But you certainly do make it seem that you believe that the law abiding are safer disarmed and at the mercy of people in government

You keep missing the point. Here it is again. American drug users are armed. They are persecuted as hard, if not harder, than countries where drug users are unarmed. It is YOU who seems to be at the mercy of your government. Being armed has made NO difference whatsoever.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Alex213]
    #5475062 - 04/03/06 03:22 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
You asked, "Which minority is easiest to persecute"
I gave you the only rational answer.


And I pointed out the error in your answer.



The question was, "Which minority is easiest to persecute." It is easier to persecute unarmed people. The error is in your unwillingness to follow the lines of reasoning presented and admit when you are mistaken. Perseverance is a wonderful trait in pursuing truth, honestly earned wealth and women of salacious appetites. It is not a virtue when incessantly promoting aborted fragments of cannabinoid induced revelations.

Quote:

Are you honestly claiming the fact that american drug users are armed has made the slightest difference to their degree of persecution?



No, learn to read and understand your own questions as well as the answers posed to your questions. You are deliberately trying to lead me and others away from the points as presented so as to hide the weakness of your reasoning. The questions was, "Which minority is easiest to persecute." Are you unable to understand the question that you yourself posed?

I will refrain from further dialogue with you in this thread as you have repeatedly demonstrated dishonesty in your responses, purposely misrepresenting my words and the words of others in pallid attempts to construct straw men so as to distract the less astute from the common senseless notions comprising the foundations underlying the house of cards in which your arguments dwell.

Good day.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Alex213]
    #5475214 - 04/03/06 03:49 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

That is some load of nonsense you have made up with no basis in reality.

yes, but it is the argument you are using. you use it in this very post:

wilshire paraphrases:

"1. the 'war on drugs' is an infringement of liberty.
2. this infringement of liberty exists in the united states.
3. there is widespread private gun ownership in the u.s., the ones being persecuted under this infringment of liberty are often armed themselves.
4. therefore, private gun ownership does not in any way help defend a people against infringements of liberty, oppression, tyranny, etc."

alex213 asks:

1) Do you deny drug users are oppressed in America?

2) Do you deny drug users have access to guns in America?

3) Why has gun ownership not ended this oppression?


to answer your questions:

1. no, i don't deny that.

2. no, i don't deny that.

3. because gun ownership does not end oppression. why do i keep having to repeat this? it helps prevent tyranny. it does not provide a guarantee against it any more than democracy, freedom of the press, or constitutions do.


What is this question?


this:

"which would be an easier population to subdue:

1. one with weapons and the skills to use them, or
2. a disarmed population which is otherwise identical to the first

?"

that is the 5th time i've asked it in this thread. you've yet to respond to it.

You've ignored these questions for 9 pages now.

you first posed that question in this post:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...art=all#5464337

in my next response, i addressed your question:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...art=all#5464674

"guns in citizens' hands do not in and of themselves create a situation where tyranny cannot take hold. for that matter, neither does democracy, freedom of the press, a constitution, or due process."

and since you read this response, you are aware that i did not ignore your question, and we've now reached the point where you're just flat out telling lies... so i'm going to agree with the others and conclude this subject isn't even worth trying to discuss with you. great thread.  :thumbup:


--------------------


Edited by wilshire (04/03/06 04:11 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Alex213]
    #5475256 - 04/03/06 03:58 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

3) Why has gun ownership not ended this oppression?

I doubt any rational person would be ready and willing to die for the liberty to smoke a doobie.

They are persecuted as hard, if not harder, than countries where drug users are unarmed.

...like China and Thailand?  :rolleyes:

Edited by MushmanTheManic (04/03/06 04:02 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Autonomous]
    #5475333 - 04/03/06 04:09 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

A series of points

1. Car thieves are "oppressed" in America.
2. Gun possession is irrelevant to your ability to resist the laws of the US government. Try it and die. That is the only outcome.
3. Gun possession does tend to discourage criminals. Even the possibility of gun possession discourages them. I was out siphoning gas during Carter's presidency and somebody woke up and I heard him say,"There's somebody out there. Martha, get the gun." Guess what we did.
4. And this is a real downer but true. People get high and misuse guns far more often than people who are sober misuse guns. The exact same thing can be said about cars.
5. In most of the US any yahoo can buy a gun. Except in high crime areas. In those areas almost all of the guns in private hands are illegally possessed. The direction of the causality arrow is not entirely clear to me.
6. Alex's knowledge of Americans is limited to what he reads or sees on television. This is also true, to a somewhat lesser extent but not much, of most Americans. Very few have experienced anything remotely resembling a fair sample of the diversity of American people.
7. American drug laws vary quite widely from state to state. Nobody gets executed for drug infractions anywhere in America. American drug laws are, by and large, pretty much in the middle of the spectrum.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEkstaza
stranger than most
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Alex213]
    #5476942 - 04/03/06 10:21 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
b) Unarmed drug users
So why is America one of, if not the biggest player in persecuting drug users?

It is self-evident that if armed drug users made any difference whatsoever then American drug users would live under tolerant drug laws. You have to be disconnected from reality not to realize this.



Wrong!!!
What you fail to even consider is the fact that drug use isn't anywhere near mainstream in America. Or in most places for that matter. Armed drug users don't have a chance against armed non-drug users.

In the event that a cause is deemed good, and just, and right for the nation to stand up for and to fight for, there will be plenty of support to win the day. As it stands right now, no one is willing to rally around the "Viva La Dope-fiend" bandwagon.

Quote:

.......disconnected from reality .....


INDEED


--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedaimyo
Monticello

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Ekstaza]
    #5476971 - 04/03/06 10:26 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Ekstaza said:
As it stands right now, no one is willing to rally around the "Viva La Dope-fiend" bandwagon.



:rofl:

That definitely earns you five :thumbup:


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Edited by daimyo (04/04/06 09:15 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Ekstaza]
    #5477772 - 04/04/06 01:39 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

What you fail to even consider is the fact that drug use isn't anywhere near mainstream in America. Or in most places for that matter. Armed drug users don't have a chance against armed non-drug users.



Isn't this the problem with the persecution of any minority? Armed jews wouldn't have stood a chance against armed nazi's either. So why do gun-owners insist legal guns would have saved the jews?

In the event that a cause is deemed good, and just, and right for the nation to stand up for and to fight for, there will be plenty of support to win the day

So you accept that gun ownership won't save any minority. The jews would have gone to the wall whether there was legal guns or not.

So we're down to "If the government introduces a measure so unpopular it unites everyone in the country against them...then legal gun ownership might be of use". Even Hitler wasn't that silly. He picked and chose minorities to persecute.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: How would gun-owners "fight tyranny"? [Re: Alex213]
    #5478804 - 04/04/06 11:34 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Isn't this the problem with the persecution of any minority? Armed jews wouldn't have stood a chance against armed nazi's either. So why do gun-owners insist legal guns would have saved the jews?



They might not have saved the jews per se, but they probably could have held off the nazis long enough for help to arrive. There was actually a big standoff between the nazis and some armed jews that lasted for months before the nazis finally broke through their defences. If more jews had acted the same, their death toll surely would not have been as high as six million.

BTW, the day they start sending pot smokers to concentration camps, I'll put up a fight.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* When are the gun owners gonna use 'em?
( 1 2 3 all )
Dogomush 3,306 53 10/06/05 08:11 PM
by Ekstaza
* The most thoughtful gun-control position I've seen yet... retread 878 5 09/01/04 10:49 PM
by retread
* The Swiss and their Guns.
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 3,118 21 08/25/05 10:23 AM
by Alex213
* Canada's firearms registry: The issue isn't gun wingnutx 613 1 07/23/03 10:35 PM
by pattern
* New Gun Protection SirTripAlot 888 14 10/23/05 03:07 AM
by z@z.com
* For You Gun Haters
( 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 all )
Sinistar 14,422 211 02/09/03 05:18 AM
by Evolving
* Goodbye Government Tyranny, Hello Assault Rifle!
( 1 2 3 4 all )
retread 4,476 62 09/18/04 07:20 PM
by RandalFlagg
* Someone stated gun registry didn't lead to arbitrary confiscation. nakors_junk_bag 626 5 12/12/05 03:09 PM
by nakors_junk_bag

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,573 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 13 queries.