Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)

1. I don't see any contradiction in those positions at all

Reply to Gravitycollapse (Original post)

Fri Sep 13, 2013, 09:51 PM

Sep 2013

I think both private individuals and the state need to have limits on the use of guns, I oppose gun violence whether that gun violence occurs in the US or Syria. As far as the state having a monopoly on the use of violence, they already have that. They have drones and chemical weapons, anyone who tries to take on the government with guns is going to be taken down in a heartbeat. If people want to fight the government they should look to Ghandi for an example of how to do it, non-violent resistance is far more effective than guns at fighting government oppression.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm not so sure you can be against state militarism and pro-gun ban. [View all] Gravitycollapse Sep 2013 OP

I don't see any contradiction in those positions at all Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #1

this seems like a re-hash of the old argument- digonswine Sep 2013 #2

That is kind of the point. That the argument we have dismissed may not be so dismissible. Gravitycollapse Sep 2013 #3

Fine- digonswine Sep 2013 #6

I think the evaluation of history and sociology would lead us to conclude... Gravitycollapse Sep 2013 #10

We were able to negotiate a reduction in nuclear weapons with the Soviet Union. mick063 Sep 2013 #4

Was the negotiation done in the name of peace or out of fear of mutual destruction? Gravitycollapse Sep 2013 #5

"Fear of mutual destruction" mick063 Sep 2013 #8

It seems that fear of mutual destruction is different from the desire for peace. Gravitycollapse Sep 2013 #13

So is there equivalency to "desire for peace" and packing a gun? mick063 Sep 2013 #16

"we need guns in case we take up arms against the gubmint! Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #7

You don't have to participate in this thread if you don't want to. Gravitycollapse Sep 2013 #9

Guns, in today's world will not protect us rustydog Sep 2013 #11

That presumes the entire military would be on one side. Lizzie Poppet Sep 2013 #18

a good discussion G_j Sep 2013 #12

Violence is only acceptble as a last resort after all other means have failed, rrneck Sep 2013 #14

I appreciate your honesty. I wish to add what I consider some basic facts: Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #15

I left this up when I went to bed last night, LWolf Sep 2013 #17