• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Right to Bear Arms

NewLeb

NewLeb

Member
It’s also why Lebanon will never fall under an evil dictatorship like ASSad. Since almost every household carries, they’re gonna be thinking twice....
 
  • Advertisement
  • proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    That's what happens when you are compensating ...it is normal :)

    No guns no mass shootings ...the problem is how to get to 0. That is a way more difficult problem.
    You are quite a party pooper, aren't you. :)
     
    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    Legendary Member
    That's what happens when you are compensating ...it is normal :)

    No guns no mass shootings ...the problem is how to get to 0. That is a way more difficult problem.
    Away from the stupid gun-horny tribulations some displayed on this thread, the problem is rather simple if it wasn't for the gun manufacturer greed to line their pockets over people's corpses: prevent the evil doers from acquiring efficient means to kill.
    You put a highly lethal weapon in the hands of an evil and/or deranged individual and the result is what you get in the US.
    The main points are:
    1. Identify the high-risk individuals, flag, help and/or isolate. Important to note that not all are deranged, some are simply evil.
    2. Control the accessibility to weapons. In Switzerland and Israel that so many on this thread bring up people have to undergo a rigorous military training up to 2 years. And guess what, if you are not deemed fit, YOU DON'T KEEP A WEAPON. Shock!
    3. Limit the lethality of the available weapons. The assumption is that some will elude #1 so prevent them from doing a lot of damage.

    As for the debate of weapons protecting democracy, spare me the BS. A lot of progress took place in the US in spite of weapons not because of it. Think of the civil rights or women's rights. It was not the armed black panther but the pacifist MLK who did it.
     
    HalaMadrid

    HalaMadrid

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Armed populations in Syria, e.g Druze and Kurds, were able to secure themselves from the government with some negotiation tactics. If they didn't have arms, they would have nothing to stand on. And would have been conscripted in the army or killed. Like other Alewites.
    Quoting myself, lol:
    Unless you're part of an organized ideologically coherent militia that has ties to heavy arms-exporting foreign states, you probably aren't going to fight against any government with any measure of success.
    That said, even they aren't going to exactly overthrow Asad, they just were able to get to a point of negotiating with the government for some autonomy. You can also attribute this largely to political expedience for both sides--not that the gov't and its allies couldn't have crushed them if they wanted to, but for both the political convenience of some autonomy to the Kurds as a counterweight to both ISIS/Nusra and Turkey.

    Both have a fractured national identity. The people of the United Kingdom are not one population. And yet we see lot of police state behaviors. Even banning people from the nation for having conservative views or imprisoning someone for a Youtube joke. On the other hand, Switzerland ensures its young men are trained in the army and have at least one weapon. And I haven't heard of any governmental practices that seem authoritarian or of that sort.
    Sure, but inarguably Switzerland's federalism is more deeply engrained than the UK's. Moreover, it's hard to buy the argument that the UK is more of a police state than Switzerland (to be clear, I don't think either are speech-suppressing police states, but they do both could do better on speech/religion issues). And again, there's no connection here with gun ownership. Do you think Choudhry would not have been arrested if he had a gun? I mean, the minaret ban still exists in Switzerland, and it's by popular referendum, so there's nothing that the gun-toting population did to stop that civil liberties encroachment.

    Their stance from immigration has some justification. A nation is open to immigrants at its beginning, but then shuts down its doors for its own good. Who they vote for is not a good metric as it's usually the worst of the two evils. They never had a Libertarian candidate with a snake flag to make it to the presidency.
    The things I listed have almost nothing to do with immigration. They are about the suppression of civil liberties inside the borders of the United States that alleged civil libertarians could not be bothered to oppose. In the same way that don't tread on me-ers are now protesting to get people killed so they could go to hair salons or protesting Obama's imaginary seizure of their guns, they could've protested those direct encroachments on privacy and civil liberties, they did not. On electoral politics, there's a difference between lesser of two evils and enthusiastic support. There's no evidence civil libertarians see the Republican party as the former. Anyway, you don't need the presidency to have principles.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    Away from the stupid gun-horny tribulations some displayed on this thread, the problem is rather simple if it wasn't for the gun manufacturer greed to line their pockets over people's corpses: prevent the evil doers from acquiring efficient means to kill.
    You put a highly lethal weapon in the hands of an evil and/or deranged individual and the result is what you get in the US.
    The main points are:
    1. Identify the high-risk individuals, flag, help and/or isolate. Important to note that not all are deranged, some are simply evil.
    2. Control the accessibility to weapons. In Switzerland and Israel that so many on this thread bring up people have to undergo a rigorous military training up to 2 years. And guess what, if you are not deemed fit, YOU DON'T KEEP A WEAPON. Shock!
    3. Limit the lethality of the available weapons. The assumption is that some will elude #1 so prevent them from doing a lot of damage.

    As for the debate of weapons protecting democracy, spare me the BS. A lot of progress took place in the US in spite of weapons not because of it. Think of the civil rights or women's rights. It was not the armed black panther but the pacifist MLK who did it.
    Spare you the BS? what i said is the debate should not be regarding the right to bear arms ... for me that is a non debatable given ..its about how to remove the 1+million machine guns circulating and the hunderds of millions of other types. (for the us)
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Away from the stupid gun-horny tribulations some displayed on this thread, the problem is rather simple if it wasn't for the gun manufacturer greed to line their pockets over people's corpses: prevent the evil doers from acquiring efficient means to kill.
    You put a highly lethal weapon in the hands of an evil and/or deranged individual and the result is what you get in the US.
    The main points are:
    1. Identify the high-risk individuals, flag, help and/or isolate. Important to note that not all are deranged, some are simply evil.
    2. Control the accessibility to weapons. In Switzerland and Israel that so many on this thread bring up people have to undergo a rigorous military training up to 2 years. And guess what, if you are not deemed fit, YOU DON'T KEEP A WEAPON. Shock!
    3. Limit the lethality of the available weapons. The assumption is that some will elude #1 so prevent them from doing a lot of damage.

    As for the debate of weapons protecting democracy, spare me the BS. A lot of progress took place in the US in spite of weapons not because of it. Think of the civil rights or women's rights. It was not the armed black panther but the pacifist MLK who did it.
    "if it wasn't for the gun manufacturer greed to line their pockets over people's corpses" - God created all men, Sam Colt made them equal.

    I prefer equality and I need my guns for protection against armed idiots and against government that might decide to run amok.
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    That said, even they aren't going to exactly overthrow Asad, they just were able to get to a point of negotiating with the government for some autonomy. You can also attribute this largely to political expedience for both sides--not that the gov't and its allies couldn't have crushed them if they wanted to, but for both the political convenience of some autonomy to the Kurds as a counterweight to both ISIS/Nusra and Turkey.
    Rijal Al-Karamah are not a cohesive miltiia with foreign ties. They're armed villagers who fight and coordinate as villages. They don't even have camps, proper training or commanders on the field. And any foreign support. Their relationship with both Assad and Russia is very shaky. It's fair to consider them an early unorganized militia of recently-armed citizens (they recently got their weapons from the Lebanese Druze). And now have some weight in Syrian politics. Before Syrian Druze were powerless and without a voice.




    Sure, but inarguably Switzerland's federalism is more deeply engrained than the UK's. Moreover, it's hard to buy the argument that the UK is more of a police state than Switzerland (to be clear, I don't think either are speech-suppressing police states, but they do both could do better on speech/religion issues).
    Read the small paragraph on censorship in Swizterzland. And then read the three large paragraphs below it on the censorship in the UK. And let me know what you come out thinking.


    I mean, the minaret ban still exists in Switzerland, and it's by popular referendum, so there's nothing that the gun-toting population did to stop that civil liberties encroachment.
    That's because the gun-touting population didn't want their European nation Islamized. It's very fair to encroach on civil liberties of a competitive religion / foreign culture.

    The things I listed have almost nothing to do with immigration. They are about the suppression of civil liberties inside the borders of the United States that alleged civil libertarians could not be bothered to oppose. In the same way that don't tread on me-ers are now protesting to get people killed so they could go to hair salons or protesting Obama's imaginary seizure of their guns, they could've protested those direct encroachments on privacy and civil liberties, they did not. On electoral politics, there's a difference between lesser of two evils and enthusiastic support. There's no evidence civil libertarians see the Republican party as the former. Anyway, you don't need the presidency to have principles.
    Well, all groups are hypocrites. I think of humans at their best states as slightly better chimpanzees. But Libertarians have to vote for whoever resembles their side the most, and it wasn't Hillary Clinton in the previous elections. But was Obama in the previous. Many Trump supporters were Obama supporters. And they are behind many promising things. Such as suspicions towards NSA, the Federal bank, Facebook, Google and Amazon, who partake in the government control and encroachment on privacy and liberties. What part of "audit the Fed" screams love for big government? What part of "end the Google monopoly"?
     
    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    Legendary Member
    Spare you the BS? what i said is the debate should not be regarding the right to bear arms ... for me that is a non debatable given ..its about how to remove the 1+million machine guns circulating and the hunderds of millions of other types. (for the us)
    I didn’t mean you, it was a generalized non specific pronoun :):)
     
    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    Legendary Member
    "if it wasn't for the gun manufacturer greed to line their pockets over people's corpses" - God created all men, Sam Colt made them equal.

    I prefer equality and I need my guns for protection against armed idiots and against government that might decide to run amok.
    So armed idiots are the problem. We’re getting somewhere loooooooool!
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    All said, I'd stick to the hunting rationale. Unless you're part of an organized ideologically coherent militia that has ties to heavy arms-exporting foreign states, you probably aren't going to fight against any government with any measure of success.
    Why do you always try to ruin the fun?
    I'd like to see the cousin-shagging tooth-missing opioid-addicted hillbillies of Alabama try to take on the full force of the US military with their peashooters and pickup trucks. Who wouldn't? Free entertainment.
     
    Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    Member
    Why do you always try to ruin the fun?
    I'd like to see the cousin-shagging tooth-missing opioid-addicted hillbillies of Alabama try to take on the full force of the US military with their peashooters and pickup trucks. Who wouldn't? Free entertainment.
     
    Nevermore

    Nevermore

    New Member
    Those rural area-dwellers probably have more trust in their communities and fellow gun owners. Presumably because they know each other better and geographic distance hinders attacks. It also makes sense simply from a security dilemma point of view. Lack of police stations => less authority => gun ownership acts as a deterrent.
    1588717615001.png

    The numbers indicate there's something wrong with their urban and suburban counterparts. I'd be more wary of someone who lives in a safe, suburban area that hasn't seen a crime since the 90s, but still insists on hoarding assault weapons - **** if I know from what they're protecting themselves.

    1588717384037.png
     
    HalaMadrid

    HalaMadrid

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Rijal Al-Karamah are not a cohesive miltiia with foreign ties. They're armed villagers who fight and coordinate as villages. They don't even have camps, proper training or commanders on the field. And any foreign support. Their relationship with both Assad and Russia is very shaky. It's fair to consider them an early unorganized militia of recently-armed citizens (they recently got their weapons from the Lebanese Druze). And now have some weight in Syrian politics. Before Syrian Druze were powerless and without a voice.
    I don't know much about the Syrian Druze militia (to the extent it can be called that). However, that also seems particularly unique to a situation in which there are multiple organized and unorganized rebellions and the government has to find accommodations with some to root out others. I.e., this is not transferrable to a situation where in a relatively peaceful country individuals are arming themselves with light weapons to defend against a government with electoral legitimacy and primacy in the use of force.
    Read the small paragraph on censorship in Swizterzland. And then read the three large paragraphs below it on the censorship in the UK. And let me know what you come out thinking.
    I come out thinking wikipedia is not a credible source for delineating the differences between countries' freedom of speech laws. But I don't know why we're in a freedom of speech argument anyway. None of this has still borne a connection between people have small arms in their homes and their speech being suppressed (to the extent it's suppressed in the UK).
    That's because the gun-touting population didn't want their European nation Islamized. It's very fair to encroach on civil liberties of a competitive religion / foreign culture.
    Doesn't matter to me what their excuse is. This is just one example of how having guns doesn't = more civil liberties protections.
    Well, all groups are hypocrites. I think of humans at their best states as slightly better chimpanzees. But Libertarians have to vote for whoever resembles their side the most, and it wasn't Hillary Clinton in the previous elections. But was Obama in the previous. Many Trump supporters were Obama supporters. And they are behind many promising things. Such as suspicions towards NSA, the Federal bank, Facebook, Google and Amazon, who partake in the government control and encroachment on privacy and liberties. What part of "audit the Fed" screams love for big government? What part of "end the Google monopoly"?
    Yeah, I won't get into the electoral politics much, but it's utterly false that the Obama-to-Trump voters were civil libertarians. In fact, the entire gun rights movement was completely hysterical about Obama and the entire conversation within it was about how Obama is going to take away their guns.

    Once again, they are not behind ANY of those things. Progressives are behind those things (the real civil libertarians). This group's only interest is their guns, NOT civil liberties. This is a movement that votes loyally and uniformly Republican, not just for president, but across the board. What part of the Republican party has ever demonstrated suspicions about the NSA, or Facebook, or Google, or "auditing the Fed?" None. In fact, no party has protected these corporations more and prostrated themselves in front of the NSA, CIA, etc, more. Exactly two right wing civil libertarians have been put in national office: Justin Amash and Mike Lee and I don't think I need to explain what's now happening with Amash. At some point if you're claiming to be a protector of civil liberties, you should use your arms to protect actual civil liberties and not just to further protect your arms. And that should be translating into electoral votes as well. It's not. So, it's not just hypocrisy, it's regressive.
     
    Top