Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumHow come the only time the MIC finds favor on DU is when it involves gun control?
Mind you, this is not a slam against members who are military veterans. Lover Boy is a veteran and a proud one because he considers the people he served with to be the best he has ever known. Having met his friends, I agree.
However, the military industrial complex is normally criticized for consuming too much revenue, infringing on civil liberties and leading to military adventurism.
Yet, in discussions involving gun control suddenly we don't need individual gun ownership because the beneficent MIC satisfies our every security need.
And when it comes to having arms to fend off from a potentially rogue MIC, well, they're just so gosh darn golly powerful it would be futile to resist -- so just surrender your guns now get back in line, prole.
But then there are the "We're coming for your guns sort" who seem to relish the thought of a contest between citizens and the MIC with the MIC prevailing. Killing ISIS as it spreads to numerous nations? Bad. Killing Americans on American soil for daring to own guns? AWEZUM!
Am I missing something?
villager
(26,001 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Do you think owning guns for national defense is pointless because the MIC is here to defend our shores?
Do you think the MIC is too powerful to resist if it were to go rogue so there is no point in allowing civilians to to own guns to defend themselves from a rogue government?
Do you think if there was ever a mass civil disobedience campaign against gun registration/turn-in that the authorities should employ whatever force is necessary to insure compliance?
villager
(26,001 posts)I've never seen any.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Are you seriously suggesting this line of argument has never been posed by the gun control regulars? This is your challenge to me? Because if it is, any claim of ignorance of such posts by you is seriously revealing about either your attention to the debate or duplicity on your part. Assuming you aren't lying in a fit of pique then you should be prepared to be disappointed by those who are presumably your peers in gun control advocacy.
To wit --
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=57571
In fact since they were deliberately left out of this Extreme Court Decision I would say those that currently exist are now nothing more than armed gangs and should be forcibly broken up..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3534667
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172129165#post22
So, how about you? Do you think the MIC has obviated the need for an armed citizenry?
villager
(26,001 posts)Those threads were hardly supportive of the MIC, however.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)So now you admit they exist. That would make your earlier implications that I was deluded/lying rather uncalled for. I would dare say, dishonorable.
I don't know how you got "taking up arms against the MIC" from "the MIC obviates the militia" but, yes, I do consider that supportive of the MIC because when these arguments are made the binary of the situation comes down to -- who would we rather have? The MIC or the people? I have yet to see the Controllers side with the people. In fact, they expect the people to disarm in the face of an MIC that is, by supposition, waging war on the American people.
If you can find a post where a gun control advocate has made a comment to the effect of, "these gunners might be crazier than outhouse rats but if the government ever does go rogue I sure hope they prevail" I would delight in seeing it. You'll find the site search feature in the upper-right hand corner of your web browser; seeing as you're all big on people showing their theses and stuff.
How about you? If the MIC does go rogue who will you be rooting for?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,555 posts)Here's one that's close:
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Never without a fight.
villager
(26,001 posts)...of the framers regarding the 2nd Amendment (And not what your pals like Alito and Scalia claim it says). Those were not supportive of the MIC. Those threads don't exist.
Your use of Sarah Palin's phrase "go rogue" is interesting, in this context.
So do you see this sea of unregulated guns in America as a way of making the NSA and the corporate elite, et al -- the MIC -- "stand down" in the face of your awesome armed power?
How often do you and yours rewatch "Red Dawn" in your household, btw?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)There is certainly no support for the people in them. The people or those trying to subjugate the people? Hmmm -- decisions, decisions.
Why, do you believe them to be so powerful that opposing them would be futile so we might as well just not bother to even arms ourselves?
villager
(26,001 posts)You've said nothing to the contrary.
I think if things devolve to that point, you will not find yourself valiantly in the trenches blasting the Pentagon to a standstill. There will be other kinds of resistance.
Though you've also said that military people are the best you've ever known -- so who is it, exactly, you're planning on killing?
For make no mistake, that's exactly what you're talking about here.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)are exactly the sort of people common criminals, foreign invaders and domestic tyrants would find unappealing. It wouldn't be worth it for any of them to try because they would never find a moment's peace to enjoy their efforts.
And, yes, I find soldiers to be -- for the most part -- admirable people. I'm not particularly fond of militarized, shoot-first or just-choke-em-out police, though. And I get the feeling I'm not alone; QED the Huey P. Newton Gun Club and the fact registration laws are ignored en masse.
villager
(26,001 posts)OK!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)it has Chris Hemsworth. Does that count?
Just out of curiosity, what is it about the idea of people defending themselves that you find so objectionable that it serves as the basis of ridicule?
"Homeowners insurance? Pfft! What a bunch a paranoid rubes! I bet they wear seatbelts too. Can you imagine?"
villager
(26,001 posts)....thus turning the tide of the foreign/fascist takeover that, evidently, only you and your guns can prevent.
Though I noticed your arsenal did nothing to prevent the excesses of the Bush/Cheney years.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)people down?
Apparently you seem to think robbers, rapists, stalkers, murderers are fictions of the imagination and the only real threats are those who would defend themselves.
Apparently neither did doing nothing.
By the way, what "arsenal"? How many guns of what types do I own?
villager
(26,001 posts)But you don't actually imagine using them? Or shooting anyone?
If your guns are such a deterrent, do you just fire them in the air and shout "EE-HAW!" and watch those hordes go scuttling back to where they came from?
How, exactly -- exactly -- do you see your lauded deterrent working? Actually?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Look, if you want to live as a corralled herd animal that is your choice. I'm sure your masters will pat you benevolently on the head and congratulate you and working so diligently for the state. If that is who you are, fine; but that doesn't obligate anyone else to seek a comfortable half-existence with a police state that spies on its own citizens.
Would you advocate confiscating guns from those who refused to surrender them knowing the potential reaction?
villager
(26,001 posts)I noticed your arsenal failed to prevent any excesses of the Bush/Cheney era. Was that because you were too busy and simply forgot to take your guns to Washington to force that regime to stand down?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)it would be an electoral, legislative and enforcement nightmare?
I would argue, no. No not-stupid person wants to be that guy to reign over that mess. Ergo, the deterrent works.
And what did you stop? you're saying you saw something you consider to be a crime and just sat on your duff grousing at others? Aren't you special.
beevul
(12,194 posts)See, we can make unsubstantiated allegations too.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Who, me?"
villager
(26,001 posts)I'm sure it all makes sense to you.
needledriver
(836 posts)The obligatory cartoon of a bearded overweight ammosexual in a baseball cap standing in futile opposition to a fearsome array of guns and tanks and missiles and drones and helicopters and fighter jets.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)digonswine
(1,485 posts)are you stating that you arm yourself for the purpose of defending our borders and that the MIC--"scary words"--can't do the job?
YOU will do it because the corrupt government will not do it.
You will be the line of defense?
I will answer--YES--the military has made an armed populace unnecessary.
An armed uprising against this government, or in the event of an ineffective military response, is laughable.
I do not like the state of affairs of the military,-- the money they consume, the fawning they draw, the power they exert--but the idea that the armed citizens are holding them in check is funny.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Victimization is never moral obligation and in those instances where it is a legal obligation the law is in error and should disregard when the need is legitimate.
But I imagine a populace that is armed is not appealing to anyone who might consider dispensing with democracy in favor of a form of rule more to their personal liking. Waging war on a populace is never the goal of these sorts, they want people to be ruled, not destroyed.
I imagine what really holds them in check are the individual soldiers. If the average American soldiers were to be surveyed as to whom they feel deeper loyalties, the people of the political leadership, the people would win overwhelmingly.
needledriver
(836 posts)The many threads which stridently promote the claim that the National Guard is the "well regulated militia" to which the 2nd Amendment limits the right to keep and bear arms.