A question for the Left/liberals on government and gun control...

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by squigator

Not dismantled, just ignored or interpreted by the UN, right?

http://townhall.com/columnists/susan...ama/page/full/

Oh, good catch. That's an incredibly intelligent column that doesn't misrepresent the facts at all. I mean, just because the treaty says it does one thing, there's no reason not to pretend it does something completely different, right? I mean, even though it's quite impossible for the treaty to do what she claims it does, that shouldn't stop her from saying, right?
I mean, someone's bound to believe her.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I don't feel real strongly because I don't know enough about it. I lean toward restricting the guns that serve no purpose other than killing large numbers of people in short periods of time.

But you want the government to have as many of these weapons as possible, right? You want the government to be able to menace or kill large numbers of people in short periods of time.

So what happens if and when the government becomes tyrannical, as so many other governments have throughout the last hundred years? You haven't been able to construct one single argument as to why such a thing can't happen, so I have to assume even you believe such a thing is possible. If it happens, how do you propose the American people resist a tyrannical U.S. government if they have no access to military-style rifles? With what implements? Cell phones? Firecrackers?

What?

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

But you want the government to have as many of these weapons as possible, right? You want the government to be able to menace or kill large numbers of people in short periods of time.

So what happens if and when the government becomes tyrannical, as so many other governments have throughout the last hundred years? You haven't been able to construct one single argument as to why such a thing can't happen, so I have to assume even you believe such a thing is possible. If it happens, how do you propose the American people resist a tyrannical U.S. government if they have no access to military-style rifles? With what implements? Cell phones? Firecrackers?

What?

you apparently and oddly consider "the government" to be some monolithic force. no matter which party is in majority, which president is in office, whether you're talking about a small town police force or the U.S. Army ... it's all "the government" that is about pounce as one single force.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by rivergator

you apparently and oddly consider "the government" to be some monolithic force. no matter which party is in majority, which president is in office, whether you're talking about a small town police force or the U.S. Army ... it's all "the government" that is about pounce as one single force.

This is pretty funny coming from a guy who apparently sees the American people as a monolithic force. After all, you don't want a gun ban imposed on just the people who commit mass murders, you want a gun ban on everyone, as if they are all potentially mass murderers, law-abiding citizens included. Can you address this contradiction?

As for the U.S. government, it is far more of a "monolithic force" than the citizenry is. The U.S. government is your classic pyramidal, hierarchical power structure, where the authority and power accumulates the higher up the chain you go. Furthermore, it's set up in such a way that it's entirely compartmentalized throughout its structure. This means that many agencies and departments within the government have no idea what the other agencies and departments are doing. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The only people who can see what all the various agencies and departments are doing are those at the very top, and they have the ability to coordinate actions involving all the agencies and departments without those individual agencies and departments knowing what the full picture is.

I know you've been told the U.S. government has "checks and balances" built into it, and it does to some extent, but the government also has features built into it that allow it to bypass those checks and balances, specifically the previously mentioned power to issue Executive Orders, "executive privilege", and state secrets privilege. Look these up and understand what they mean. They give the government the ability to act and override all the checks and balances that are in place to prevent lawlessness and tyranny, and their existence is no accident.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

This is pretty funny coming from a guy who apparently sees the American people as a monolithic force. After all, you don't want a gun ban imposed on just the people who commit mass murders, you want a gun ban on everyone, as if they are all potentially mass murderers, law-abiding citizens included. Can you address this contradiction?

As for the U.S. government, it is far more of a "monolithic force" than the citizenry is. The U.S. government is your classic pyramidal, hierarchical power structure, where the authority and power accumulates the higher up the chain you go. Furthermore, it's set up in such a way that it's entirely compartmentalized throughout its structure. This means that many agencies and departments within the government have no idea what the other agencies and departments are doing. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The only people who can see what all the various agencies and departments are doing are those at the very top, and they have the ability to coordinate actions involving all the agencies and departments without those individual agencies and departments knowing what the full picture is.

I know you've been told the U.S. government has "checks and balances" built into it, and it does to some extent, but the government also has features built into it that allow it to bypass those checks and balances, specifically the previously mentioned power to issue Executive Orders, "executive privilege", and state secrets privilege. Look these up and understand what they mean. They give the government the ability to act and override all the checks and balances that are in place to prevent lawlessness and tyranny, and their existence is no accident.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Where do you come up with this stuff?

...

Originally Posted by rivergator

I lean toward restricting the guns that serve no purpose other than killing large numbers of people in short periods of time.

[rivergator]

First of all, you could probably be a bit more honest and include the entire quote:

I don't feel real strongly because I don't know enough about it. I lean toward restricting the guns that serve no purpose other than killing large numbers of people in short periods of time. But I can't point to specific weapons because, as I said, my knowledge is limited. Don't know much about guns because they don't interest me.

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas...#ixzz2HLjgyk7L

Second, I'm not sure restricting a few weapons is exactly a gun ban. You know what a ban is, right?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by rivergator

First of all, you could probably be a bit more honest and include the entire quote.

What else in that quote was significant enough to include? That your knowledge is limited? That you're not interested in guns? How would mentioning that materially change the portion I highlighted? It wouldn't.

Your complaint doesn't make any sense.

Second, I'm not sure restricting a few weapons is exactly a gun ban. You know what a ban is, right?

Very well, you believe the people should be restricted from possessing military-grade rifles that the government may have unlimited access to. Is that correct? You want a potentially tyrannical government to be able to possess and utilize critical weaponry that the citizens won't have access to.

What possible reason could you have for this?

[rivergator]

As I've made clear, I'm not worried about a tyrannical govt. I'm just not. But I see you avoided the monolithic govt issue to pretend I want a ban on weapons. So, which govt are you so afraid of? City, county, state, federal?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by rivergator

As I've made clear, I'm not worried about a tyrannical govt. I'm just not.

I already know this. You are a proponent of tyrannical government. If the U.S. government became openly tyrannical, you'd be in paradise.

So of course you're not worried.

But I see you avoided the monolithic govt issue to pretend I want a ban on weapons.

LOL, right, I "ignored" the monolithic government issue by answering and completely debunking it, a response to which you notably couldn't mount a rebuttal.

So, which govt are you so afraid of? City, county, state, federal?

Federal.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

I already know this. You are a proponent of tyrannical government. If the U.S. government became openly tyrannical, you'd be in paradise.

So of course you're not worried.

You do love that kind of stuff when you can't think of anything else don't you. "You want to ban all guns from all Americans ... You're a proponent of tyrannical government ..."

LOL, right, I "ignored" the monolithic government issue by answering and completely debunking it, a response to which you notably couldn't mount a rebuttal.

See, you don't actually debunk something by opinion. That requires fact. But, OK, those at the very top of the government, the president, is going to be able to mobilize all the forces of govt against the people?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by rivergator

You do love that kind of stuff when you can't think of anything else don't you. "You want to ban all guns from all Americans ... You're a proponent of tyrannical government ..."

Yep. Nothing I said was untrue.

See, you don't actually debunk something by opinion. That requires fact. But, OK, those at the very top of the government, the president, is going to be able to mobilize all the forces of govt against the people?

Sure, why not? All the Executive Orders are in place for such a martial law scenario. Rex 84 is in place. Continuity of government plans are in place. FEMA is in place. The Department of Fatherland Security is in place. The police are militarized. Drones are already flying over American skies. Fusion centers are in place. The U.S. and Canada have deals in place to use each other's troops in the event of an emergency. The list goes on and on.

What specifically would make such a scenario impossible or prevent it from ever happening?