gun controll

[ReubenMcHawk]

I'd say America needs some form of gun control, I don't trust half of these Bible-thumping inbreds running around with AK-47s.

[danhezee]

Well since we are mentioning drones and bundy ranch now, I might as well share my thoughts on that too.

I am surprised the bundy ranch incident didn't turn into a massacre. The civilians that drove across multiple state lines were obviously looking for a fight. If a car would have back fired there would probably have been a gun fight. That was very tense situation. It was almost a modern real life Open Range starring Kevin Costner and Robert Duvall.

My thoughts on drones are really my fears on drones, but first I need to give a brief bit of history before guns during medieval times. Before guns in the medieval ages there were no concepts of rights, liberties, fair trails, etc. to the commoners, a.k.a the peasants. Nobles were never held accountable for the way they treated peasants. If the peasants didn't like something, it didn't matter. The nobles would dispatch a knight or groups of knights to shut them up. Knights only existed to be enforcers. Knights trained their entire lives for combat, peasants didn't. One knight could easily overpower a small group of peasant men. A small group of knights could overpower an entire village of men. Any and all rebellion was quickly dealt with and it was clear the peasants were at the mercy of the nobles and they would never be treated fairly or equally.

But then the gun came along and one untrained peasants could overpower a knight. Knights were no longer looked at as an unstoppable force. The nobles no longer had absolute power things like fair trails sprang into existence. Noble who mistreated peasants could be trialed for their wrongdoings.

My fears with drones and really all the technology at the disposal of the infantry is a small group of infantry could easily and quickly overpower 100's maybe even 1000's of civilians even if they had guns. With that type of potential enforcement, due process, which is basically your right to a fair trial is being taken away. Suspicion, without a trial to prove you have evidence, is all that is needed in some cases to be locked away for ever or even killed by a flying robot. Having a public record of the evidence used to convict someone of a crime creates a layer of transparency and transparency usually comes across as fair.

[Vezok]

What is it with all these fears of the government? Seriously. The two-party system we have (while incompetent as hell) keeps the U.S. from becoming a tyrant to its own people. There's also the checks and balances system, even though I'd say the legislative branch has too much power (or the judicial doesn't have enough). Heck, it's a weird sight when its the politicians that are the ones inciting these fears of the government, in order to gain power.
This "the people need to be able to overthrow their government" mentality is actually kind of garbage when the government is specifically designed well to not do this sort of thing.

Edit* Btw, I am extremely impressed with the community for how civil this discussion is.

[danhezee]

It is an acknowledgement of world history. There has never been a consolidation of power that didn't lead to corruption and the mistreatment of the people. The United States isn't immune from it. The two party system definitely isn't the solution. People blindly choosing one side because their parents and community choose that same side isn't helpful. Turning every single issue into a binary all or nothing debate isn't helpful. The artificial division and focus on the extreme edges on policies such as gun control open the door for law makers both republican and democrat to vote for and sign into law the indefinite detention of US citizens without due process based off of suspicion. That happened on December 15, 2011. And of course you have the patriot act, notorious for consolidating power and limiting and reducing civil liberties signed into law October 26, 2001 by Bush and extended on May 26, 2011 by Obama.

[ZEB 99]

I'd say America needs some form of gun control, I don't trust half of these Bible-thumping inbreds running around with AK-47s.

if they are truly christian they will not attempt at your life

[Vezok]

But you must realize that right now is the highest point in civil liberties that the U.S. has ever been, because it is at this time that minorities have the most rights. Yes, there might be things like the patriot act every so often, but what you're saying doesn't account for the simple fact that all Americans have the most rights at the present.
All that is because of certain movements like the civil rights movement (which was vehemently nonviolent). You don't need weapons in order to get the rights you deserve, as the largest democracy on earth (India) liberated itself from the largest empire of all time (Britain) nonviolently.

Spoiler:

For the record, I am a vehement christian pacifist. I vote democrat, I support gay marriage, support socialism, and am legally listed a conscientious objector in the U.S. draft. If anyone wants to have a deep, theological/political/philosophical description of my belief, feel free to shoot me a PM.

And for the record, I am NOT trying to bring religion in to this. This will be the last I speak of it.

EDIT* @Zeb's ninja.
Yea, most Christians haven't figured out that when Jesus said "love your enemies," he didn't mean shoot them. Reuben is pretty spot on there.

[danhezee]

Praise The Lord And Pass The Ammunition

[ZEB 99]

But you must realize that right now is the highest point in civil liberties that the U.S. has ever been, because it is at this time that minorities have the most rights. Yes, there might be things like the patriot act every so often, but what you're saying doesn't account for the simple fact that all Americans have the most rights at the present.
All that is because of certain movements like the civil rights movement (which was vehemently nonviolent). You don't need weapons in order to get the rights you deserve, as the largest democracy on earth (India) liberated itself from the largest empire of all time (Britain) nonviolently.

Spoiler:

For the record, I am a vehement christian pacifist. I vote democrat, I support gay marriage, support socialism, and am legally listed a conscientious objector in the U.S. draft. If anyone wants to have a deep, theological/political/philosophical description of my belief, feel free to shoot me a PM.

And for the record, I am NOT trying to bring religion in to this. This will be the last I speak of it.

EDIT* @Zeb's ninja.
Yea, most Christians haven't figured out that when Jesus said "love your enemies," he didn't mean shoot them. Reuben is pretty spot on there.

he said love thy neighbor , (although he probably said love thy enemy but i haven't read the bible in a couple ears), were i come from we are taught that if you own a rifle, you don't just shoot people for no reason , if someone is trying to rod you you give them 3 warnings to back away and if they rush you fire, we are taught to respect life and not to kill, we are taught to respect all neighbors

[Vezok]

he said love thy neighbor , (although he probably said love thy enemy but i haven't read the bible in a couple ears), were i come from we are taught that if you own a rifle, you don't just shoot people for no reason , if someone is trying to rod you you give them 3 warnings to back away and if they rush you fire, we are taught to respect life and not to kill, we are taught to respect all neighbors

...did you just correct me and then proceed to say that you didn't know what you were talking about?

[CommieBuffalo]

I'd say America needs some form of gun control, I don't trust half of these Bible-thumping inbreds running around with AK-47s.

if they are truly christian they will not attempt at your life

Oh, you mean the True Christians™?
Yeah, obvious "no true scotsman" fallacy right there.

[ZEB 99]

even if he did sy love thy enemy where did he say to lay to not let yourself be controlled by your enemy

[Vezok]

even if he did sy love thy enemy where did he say to lay to not let yourself be controlled by your enemy

How about "those who live by the sword die by the sword."
But as per not wanting to start a flamewar about religion, I will cease this here. If you wish to discuss theology, send me a private message and I will surely enlighten you.
And trust me, I'm quite good :)

[CommieBuffalo]

even if he did sy love thy enemy where did he say to lay to not let yourself be controlled by your enemy

How about "those who live by the sword die by the sword."
But as per not wanting to start a flamewar about religion, I will cease this here. If you wish to discuss theology, send me a private message and I will surely enlighten you.
And trust me, I'm quite good :)

My IRL name is Théo, does that count as theology credentials?

[ReubenMcHawk]

There's a pretty big difference between being a religious zealot and closely following the laws of said religion.

[Willy]

But you must realize that right now is the highest point in civil liberties that the U.S. has ever been, because it is at this time that minorities have the most rights. Yes, there might be things like the patriot act every so often, but what you're saying doesn't account for the simple fact that all Americans have the most rights at the present.

I'm not sure how 'minorities having more/the most rights they've ever had' necessarily equates to the existence and propagation of universal liberty without evidence to support such a proposal, but whatever.