NightVision
03-26-2009, 06:51 AM
In this rant/thread I will probably end up bashing on both liberals and conservatives, but whatever thats the whole point.
First of all, there are those who are of the more conservative persuasion who are all for gun rights and the like. One of the arguments that I have herd in favor of gun rights is that all of the parts of a gun are just pieces of metal & that it is "a useful tool" [Oleg Volk and the like] which of course is entirely true if you are living in some 3rd world African nation where a crazy dictator is liable to start rounding people up at any minute. Some places are like this in the USA, but a LOT of it is just suburbia where this sort of thing doesn't happen. Of course there is the very remote chance that it could, but that is another issue. So what I am talking about here is not the RKBA in regard to starting a revolution like Red Dawn or something completely insane like that, but the right to use guns against the low-class sort of criminal that is on the bad side of the tracks, not the type of criminal that is in the white house. With that said, I am not arguing for the illegitimacy of concealed carry in suburbia, but that it just seems a bit weird.
Now, what about the supposed 2nd amendment that everyone seems to get worked up about once every few years? Most people are not lawyers so how exactly should they know any of the history behind it or what it stands for in a legal sense... Anyway, the standard liberal argument for owning certain models of guns is that “is it really that good for shooting deer?.” How or why is this supposed to compute in their twisted sense of what gun rights are? The problem with their argument, other than the usual snarkiness, is that they are assuming that the individual with the [evil gun] is actually only pro-hunting and that they could never, ever even think of using the gun in any other way. This is just not the case. Consider two guns side by side: the break-open single shogun, and the fully automatic FN Minimi. Both are guns, but there is no way in hell I would hunt with a belt-fed machine gun. So, why would one own a gun like this? To defend against a corrupt and tyrranical government. This sort of weapon e.g. light belt-fed machine guns, submachine guns, certain fully automatic shotguns, anti-armor devices, grenade launchers, armor-piercing ammunition are what the government fears. It comes as little surprise that these weapons are almost impossible to purchase. So, to distill the last few sentences to one concise idea: liberals only like the guns that look like they could not be effective in mounting an effective resistance against a corrupt government, they use reality denial to think everyone agrees with them. Of course most of what is currently available up to .50BMG rifles & the like is largely ineffective against military armor, other than guerrilla tactics. So they have won. If the people had accesses to the newest anti-armor weapons/anti-missile technology/big bad toys I would guess that the government would step a little bit more carefully around civil rights, rather than trampling all over them as they currently do like the katrina firearms confiscations. So here the liberals have won by default, since it is impossible to compromise on the crystal-clear “shall not be infringed” - yet the right itself has been computerized. It is possible in most parts of the USA to own an ar-15 and put as many stupid lights/lasers/sights/cupholders and other useless crap on it as one desires. This does not do a damn thing compared to a full-auto rifle that might not look as frightening but which would be much more useful in scaring off opressive government agents. So by giving them a little room for their mall ninjafied rifles, the conservatives' need for arms that could actually go up against a tyrannical government has been satiated, and the government and liberals satisfied. As nasty as this may appear, it is the current reality of politics and government and is likely to stay that way.
Now, moving on to reality. If the “shall not be infringed” actually meant anything and those who believed in being able to own guns that were designed to fight with a tyrannical government actually did anything, they would not go and protest or start gigantic organizations who lower themselves to the level of corruption that modern politics has become[NRA]. No, they would enlist in the countries' military, learn how to use those weapons necessary for a revolution and seize the points of power necessary for a revolution. If there were tanks surrounding the white house, a few attack helicopters overhead – the government would be much more likely to negotiate or agree with those who would advocate freedom from continued tyranny, not continued government oppression. However, this is all very unlikely. As long as there is available junk food, the coffee houses are still in business, ipods are still selling, cellphones are still causing road accidents, the entertainment complex is still working, and there is still an economy in the current form no one is going to go to these measures. **Would you like some bread and circus with that?**
Really, what it comes down to is an overall loss of integrity of both sides, which is necessary to run the current form of government, but is just that – a compromise of values on both sides.
First of all, there are those who are of the more conservative persuasion who are all for gun rights and the like. One of the arguments that I have herd in favor of gun rights is that all of the parts of a gun are just pieces of metal & that it is "a useful tool" [Oleg Volk and the like] which of course is entirely true if you are living in some 3rd world African nation where a crazy dictator is liable to start rounding people up at any minute. Some places are like this in the USA, but a LOT of it is just suburbia where this sort of thing doesn't happen. Of course there is the very remote chance that it could, but that is another issue. So what I am talking about here is not the RKBA in regard to starting a revolution like Red Dawn or something completely insane like that, but the right to use guns against the low-class sort of criminal that is on the bad side of the tracks, not the type of criminal that is in the white house. With that said, I am not arguing for the illegitimacy of concealed carry in suburbia, but that it just seems a bit weird.
Now, what about the supposed 2nd amendment that everyone seems to get worked up about once every few years? Most people are not lawyers so how exactly should they know any of the history behind it or what it stands for in a legal sense... Anyway, the standard liberal argument for owning certain models of guns is that “is it really that good for shooting deer?.” How or why is this supposed to compute in their twisted sense of what gun rights are? The problem with their argument, other than the usual snarkiness, is that they are assuming that the individual with the [evil gun] is actually only pro-hunting and that they could never, ever even think of using the gun in any other way. This is just not the case. Consider two guns side by side: the break-open single shogun, and the fully automatic FN Minimi. Both are guns, but there is no way in hell I would hunt with a belt-fed machine gun. So, why would one own a gun like this? To defend against a corrupt and tyrranical government. This sort of weapon e.g. light belt-fed machine guns, submachine guns, certain fully automatic shotguns, anti-armor devices, grenade launchers, armor-piercing ammunition are what the government fears. It comes as little surprise that these weapons are almost impossible to purchase. So, to distill the last few sentences to one concise idea: liberals only like the guns that look like they could not be effective in mounting an effective resistance against a corrupt government, they use reality denial to think everyone agrees with them. Of course most of what is currently available up to .50BMG rifles & the like is largely ineffective against military armor, other than guerrilla tactics. So they have won. If the people had accesses to the newest anti-armor weapons/anti-missile technology/big bad toys I would guess that the government would step a little bit more carefully around civil rights, rather than trampling all over them as they currently do like the katrina firearms confiscations. So here the liberals have won by default, since it is impossible to compromise on the crystal-clear “shall not be infringed” - yet the right itself has been computerized. It is possible in most parts of the USA to own an ar-15 and put as many stupid lights/lasers/sights/cupholders and other useless crap on it as one desires. This does not do a damn thing compared to a full-auto rifle that might not look as frightening but which would be much more useful in scaring off opressive government agents. So by giving them a little room for their mall ninjafied rifles, the conservatives' need for arms that could actually go up against a tyrannical government has been satiated, and the government and liberals satisfied. As nasty as this may appear, it is the current reality of politics and government and is likely to stay that way.
Now, moving on to reality. If the “shall not be infringed” actually meant anything and those who believed in being able to own guns that were designed to fight with a tyrannical government actually did anything, they would not go and protest or start gigantic organizations who lower themselves to the level of corruption that modern politics has become[NRA]. No, they would enlist in the countries' military, learn how to use those weapons necessary for a revolution and seize the points of power necessary for a revolution. If there were tanks surrounding the white house, a few attack helicopters overhead – the government would be much more likely to negotiate or agree with those who would advocate freedom from continued tyranny, not continued government oppression. However, this is all very unlikely. As long as there is available junk food, the coffee houses are still in business, ipods are still selling, cellphones are still causing road accidents, the entertainment complex is still working, and there is still an economy in the current form no one is going to go to these measures. **Would you like some bread and circus with that?**
Really, what it comes down to is an overall loss of integrity of both sides, which is necessary to run the current form of government, but is just that – a compromise of values on both sides.