Atheism
Politics
Memes
Mind
Matters
Random
Interact
Feedback
Links
Forum
Home
Conspiracy Theories
War: What is it Good For?
Americans are...
For the Love of America
Guns
Does God Bless America?
The Right to Bare Arms
Americans of the Republican persuasion believe in the following concepts:-
The US Government cannot be trusted at all, ever, because power corrupts
Only the US government can be trusted to possess weapons of mass destruction
The more military power America has the better, you can't be too powerful or too careful
Expressing a desire to own a weapon of mass destruction implies a desire to use such a weapon, if you're not American
Private American citizens need to own weapons capable of killing people, including officers of their own government
Expressing a desire to own weapons capable of killing of officers of the US government does not imply a desire to use such a weapon and is not evidence of mental imbalance
Expressing a desire to own weapons capable of mass destruction or to possess technology which can be a precursor to such weaponry is clear evidence that an entire nation is mentally imbalanced (if it's Islamic or Communist)
Expressing a desire to own military power which vaguely approaches that of America is proof of hostile intent
America possessing more arms than the rest of the world put together is evidence of peaceful intent
Can anybody see some inconsistencies there? Why is it perfectly reasonable to let your cousin Billy-Bob keep a machine gun and a rocket launcher “for home de-fense” and hear him ranting away about the gov'mint and the massacres at Wako and Ruby Ridge without for one minute questioning the wisdom of letting him have such weapons and yet reacting with horror at the idea that Iran might enrich uranium? Make your minds up please. Is wanting to possess weapons evidence of mental instability and a dangerous attitude or not? Is practicing constantly with excessively powerful weapons evidence of peaceful intent?
If deterrence through force of arms is good enough for cousin Billy-Bob why is it not legitimate for Iran or North Korea? Because you think the Koreans are dangerous fuckers? Guess what, that's what millions of people think about those Americans who love their guns, including a lot of their neighbours. No nuclear-armed country has ever been attacked with nuclear weapons. No rogue state has ever used a nuclear weapon in anger except for America. So how does that make America more trustworthy than states which have not used such weapons? We had to do it because otherwise the invasion and subjugation of the enemy would have been costly in terms of lives. Is that a novel problem in war that no other country had ever faced before or since? Of course not. Any war involving a nuclear-armed power could escalate to the use of the nuclear option quite rapidly.
Your chances of being shot by anybody is increased if you own a gun. The chances of you being killed by US marshals increases rapidly if you own a gun. Do you know why? Because marshals don't like to be killed doing their job. Strange but true. America is full of right wing arseholes who hate their government, own weapons, fantasize about shooting marshals and complain about injustice when armed lunatics get shot.
“I think just about everybody here would like to see a revolution and have the Federal Government washed away. But nobody really wants a shooting war. We'd be annihilated.” — Trish Rippie
Get it clear, no individual stands a chance against the government in a shooting war, it is a waste of time to even think about it. The government has more fire-power and the best way to ensure the minimum loss of life (the gun-nut is a walking corpse anyway the moment he decides not to surrender) is to use that massive superiority in a devastating single attack rather that let the gun-nut have a sporting chance. You've seen the end of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? That is pretty much standard operating procedure for the apprehension of dangerous fugitives. It's not a game, it is not meant to give the bugger a fair chance, it is meant to be decisively one-sided, the ethos of the slaughter house rather than the bullring.
The United States of America does not need protection from invasion by an armed citizenry. It is standard military doctrine that to invade safely you need a three to one military advantage. Uncle Sam has more weaponry than the rest of the world put together. And an ocean on each side. How is America going to be invaded? It is an absurd idea, almost as absurd an idea as having your defence strategy written into your constitution and left there for over two centuries.
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” — Thomas Jefferson
America please stop living under the codes of your barbarous ancestors and get with the twenty first century. The United States of America has no need of a well run militia when it has the world's most capable professional military. If the defence of America relies on cousin Billy-Bob you've already lost.
It is madness to have a constitutional right to overthrow the government written into the constitution. The right to overthrow a government is an inalienable right as is the right of self defence and it overrides any law or constitution. Instituting a right of rebellion into a constitution is as stupid as having a sign that says You may throw stones at this notice.
It doesn't take much to push somebody over the edge and give them a reason to want to “go out in a blaze of glory”, especially when the media will guarantee to make you the most famous person who ever drew breath in your town once you decide to do it. Publicizing the names and photographs of spree killers and “assassins” (nobodies who murder somebodies simply to cease being nobodies) should be a criminal offence, it is being an accessory to murder. Never speak or write their names. Ever.
If you have got yourself into the stupid position that there are guns in every home you are in danger from the gun-nut who was as sane as any other gun owner when he bought his gun. In that situation the worst thing you can do is to forbid people from carrying their weapons. Nobody is safe in a world where gun acquisition is easy and lethal handguns sit in drawers in every bedroom. Anybody could flip at any time and decide to go and get their weapons and head for a place where guns are forbidden, where they will be safe. This really is the worst of all possible worlds, you are scared of guns, you have bought a gun to protect yourself from your exaggerated fears and now you haven't got it to hand because guns are forbidden where you work and there is your crazy neighbour walking towards you with both his guns in his hands understanding exactly what you are thinking.
If you live in a state that allows anybody who isn't a felon to own a gun then paradoxically the safest thing to do is to pass a law which will allow anybody who wants to carry a concealed gun to do so. A gun left at home is of no use to anybody, it is just waiting to be stolen while you are out of the house or picked up by a child. However if anywhere in a crowd of people there may be one or more guns tucked away out of sight things are very much less comfortable for the wannabe robber or spree killer. People who know they are vulnerable to counter-attack are much less likely to decide to attack, and where would the glory be in waving your guns about down the post office and then being shot in the chest by an overweight 32 year-old virgin who lives with his mother?
Just like Uncle Sam and the police armed criminals and wannabe spree killers always feel much safer with unilateral armament.