New NRA ad calls Obama hypocrite for USSS protection

[Gil Hamilton]

Not to mention that the 2nd Amendment is more useful as a disincentive for tyranny. Moreover, you still need boots on the ground, kicking in doors, to form a police state.

Doesn't tyranny and police states usually come with the overwhelming support of the majority of a population? It's extremely hard to picture an American police state that wouldn't be demanded into existence by the population in steps, including the gun owning part of that population. In that case, I don't see how guns are a disincentive for tyranny. It's not like one day the government is going to go "So, we're a dictatorship now and we are now going to villainously shoving sacks on people away to haul them off. You're dispersed population of firearms enthusiasts of varying degrees of competency and political outlook can't stop us now! I invite the new Secretary of Citizen Snatching to join me in an evil chortle."

[The Kernel]

Tell that to this guy.

[Scrib]

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?”
Love it. Right off the bat.
No one including the President is saying that. But of course lets not ask the more correct question. "Are the President's kids a high profile target that could be a detriment to functioning government if kidnapped or killed?"

Oh or what The Kernel said.

So...the President's kids are more important than yours

That...actually was a West Wing episode. Season 4 finale and opening of Season 5.

Which was my point. That show had a much more satisfying conclusion to pretty much every challenge Obama faced. Except that time.

[Slacker]

I've actually had to smack this argument down, both in real life and over facebook. It's incredibly, staggeringly, ignorant.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Not to mention that the 2nd Amendment is more useful as a disincentive for tyranny. Moreover, you still need boots on the ground, kicking in doors, to form a police state.

Doesn't tyranny and police states usually come with the overwhelming support of the majority of a population? It's extremely hard to picture an American police state that wouldn't be demanded into existence by the population in steps, including the gun owning part of that population. In that case, I don't see how guns are a disincentive for tyranny. It's not like one day the government is going to go "So, we're a dictatorship now and we are now going to villainously shoving sacks on people away to haul them off. You're dispersed population of firearms enthusiasts of varying degrees of competency and political outlook can't stop us now! I invite the new Secretary of Citizen Snatching to join me in an evil chortle."

Does the presence of firearms even matter? A tyrannical government can't exist without military backing. And I don't think an AR-15 is a threat to any of the toys the US military has.

But yeah, modern despots have either made very slow power grabs or have been put into office by the majority of people who have a say in things.


This is moot, of course, because I don't see the US military even being willing to back the government if they went full-blown tyrant on the country.

[Havok]

It is hardly surprising that having armed protection for families of members of the government while talking about disarming the general population would come off as hypocritical to people who feel strongly about their right to self defense. Especially if such people already have grievances with and mistrust for said government.

I was reading Cracked recently, and came across an article regarding guns and video games. Author made a very good point about it.

An anti violent video game article? Sigh. Countries with low levels of violence often play violent video games too.

Did you miss the point of what he and the article were saying? It isn't you have violent XYZ so that makes you violent. It isn't really about violence at all. It's about fighting for something or against something. Americans are at the top of the heap. There are no Red Coats or Nazis or Commies and we can't find the Taliban. As a culture, the author opines that we are looking for the next great enemy and the next great war because we have put so much emphasis on our glorious military past. I mean I get all the gratitude and respect, but "The Greatest Generation"? Why? because they all got drafted and didn't make a stink about it? Because those that didn't get drafted volunteered because the country got attacked? The fucking Nazis were killing Jews by the millions. That generation should be condemned for not rising up sooner or for the fact that if Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor that we probably wouldn't have intervened at all. I respect what they did, but it wasn't some glorious undertaking that that generation felt it had to embark on. We were brought in kicking and screaming, or more aptly, completely ignoring what was going on and not caring.

My little rant there aside, if there was a clear cut REAL enemy and mission in Vietnam (outside of stop Communism) and the VC were an actual threat to global security like the Nazis were, then the soldiers of Vietnam would have been just as uncomplaining and willing and "Great" even though they would have been brought kicking and screaming into it too.

The point is we are looking to live up to a past that has been sugarcoated and re-imagined in Hollywood, in our politics, on Facebook etc., etc. and that is why we are being violent; a self made and imagined warrior culture with no war to fight.

[Col. Crackpot]

The 2nd amendment is obsolete nonsense. No redneck militia is capable of warding off a 21st century US military.

Iraq and Afghanistan ring any bells? How long has that dragged on?

It's pretty silly to compare groups that are vastly better funded, organized, and motivated fighting against foreign occupiers to a bunch of freepers riding around their motorized wheelchairs in FREEDOM RALLIES.

Are you seriously suggesting with a straight face that militants in third world shitholes would have access to more arms funding than people in the United States? That is earthshatteringly dumb.

[Losonti Tokash]

Maybe "funding" isn't the right word. I was referring more to how the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents have/had access to support from outside groups and countries. I don't see Canada engaging in secret arms sales to octogenarians rebellling against America.

[Col. Crackpot]

Maybe "funding" isn't the right word. I was referring more to how the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents have/had access to support from outside groups and countries. I don't see Canada engaging in secret arms sales to octogenarians rebellling against America.

If you think that the NRA is a bunch of octegenarians you are either an idiot or trying to be cute. Also the US wouldn't need outside funding because we already have the damn guns (thanks to the NRA in part) and are rich enough to buy more on our own.

[Aaron MkII]

They'll just do what revolutionaries have done since time began, ambush government troops and take their kit. Hell America couldn't occupy Afghanistan or Iraq properly, there simply aren't enough bodies and heavy equipment to do the job of securing America.

[Losonti Tokash]

Whatever. I was just pointing out they're not particularly similar situations except in the most general sense. I also wasn't being 100% serious because there is basically zero chance a significant number of these super patriots would do anything other than blindly support the government as long as it's being tyrannical to other people, making the whole idea of some grand American insurgency pretty silly.

[Aaron MkII]

Of course there isn't.

[Stark]

It'd be trivial to politically isolate and cast any such PATRIOTIC GUN REBELLION as a bunch of maniacs anyway. Their huge arsenal of guns (which I'm reliably informed is all you need for an insurgency, ho ho ho) will just allow them to hit the bottom rung of a rebellion and a) murder people they don't like and b) make life miserable for everyone in areas they control. The idea that such a revolution would succeed is only beaten by the idea that such a revolution succeeding wouldn't turn out to be a hilarious disaster as they over-reach themselves/use force to implement their policies/fragment along political divisions/collapse into rebellion again.

You'd think Americans would be the last people to joke about civil chaos, but I guess posturing is more fun than reading history books.

[Aaron MkII]

And yet, here we are with the Governor of Massachusetts telling the feds "nope not going to cooperate" and Texas talking about jail time for people trying to enforce it.

And that's just from crap that doesn't infringe on your right to own anything. Guns are apparently serious business down there.

[Stark]

That's not even hugely surprising; even in the AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION states considered refusing to implement Federal gun laws in the 90s. But lets face it, this is politics. If you can make political points by protesting and then giving up, why not? You might even get your state a bigger slice of the payout pie by making a bit of noise.

The American 'don't like central authority but in fact worship central authority' thing is pretty fun to watch, though.

[Aaron MkII]

That's not even hugely surprising; even in the AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION states considered refusing to implement Federal gun laws in the 90s. But lets face it, this is politics. If you can make political points by protesting and then giving up, why not? You might even get your state a bigger slice of the payout pie by making a bit of noise.

The American 'don't like central authority but in fact worship central authority' thing is pretty fun to watch, though.

Yeah, it's funny in way.

Just to be clear, I don't think there will be a revolt, not an armed one anyways.

[Stark]

Yeah, obviously. Its just funny that you get people like Crackpot equating 'owning a lot of guns' to 'having the logistical backend, leadership, goals and nerve to run an insurgency', without taking that extra step into Wow That Would Be Terrible territory.

If you had a revolution to SAVE GUN OWNERSHIP FREEDOM that killed a few million people, would they count on gun-related death statistics? :V

[Col. Crackpot]

Yeah, obviously. Its just funny that you get people like Crackpot equating 'owning a lot of guns' to 'having the logistical backend, leadership, goals and nerve to run an insurgency', without taking that extra step into Wow That Would Be Terrible territory.

If you had a revolution to SAVE GUN OWNERSHIP FREEDOM that killed a few million people, would they count on gun-related death statistics? :V

Guns have utility. You can feed your family, protect your homestead etc. There is also the recreational and sporting aspect of firearms ownership. I don't believe we should be in the business of banning things that provide utility and enjoyment to millions simply because when misused they cause harm to thousands. If were are going down that road there are many things that do not provide the level of utility firearms do and cause far more deaths (booze) that should be banned first. If banning shit actually worked.

[Aaron MkII]

And he's not arguing that they have no utility.

[Aaron MkII]

In fact Dan has said since Sandy Hook that gun control is largely ineffective, his issue is clearly that America is unable to discuss the issue maturely. And he's mocking the exremists.

[Stark]

And he's not arguing that they have no utility.

Indeed his quote has literally nothing to do with 'utility' or the pros and cons of gun control; I was talking about the oft-repeated (and Crackpot-discussed) idea of the grass-roots revolution - the threat of violence and murder that underlies all American gun owning discourse.

Cause, y'know, I know what happens when civil order collapses and maniacs with guns start deciding what is legal and what isn't.

[Havok]

They'll just do what revolutionaries have done since time began, ambush government troops and take their kit. Hell America couldn't occupy Afghanistan or Iraq properly,

Don't be daft. Of course we could. The problem was that we didn't want to.

there simply aren't enough bodies and heavy equipment to do the job of securing America.

Again, yes there is. You are talking about the difference between can't and won't. Of course the US military could occupy America, just like we were able to create 100,000 planes for WWII when we had like, none. It is just there is zero will or thought to doing so.

[Aaron MkII]

*shrug* We all know the chances of a large scale armed rebellion are pretty small.

[Havok]

Small? I would say they are zero. There is a better chance of you being re-uped into the Canadian Mounted Calvary (or whatever you guys call it ) and leading a division of moose to invade Wisconsin than any organized resistance in America... organizing. Even still between Sheriffs, police, state national guards, there are so many levels a rebellion would have to get through now before they even sniffed a federal level that they would all be dead or in jail before it hit the President's desk.

[Stark]

Whether or not it would happen, I think its important that people talk about it so much. I mean when people habitually end demands to government with '... or else', literally trying to bask in reflected glory from an event hundreds of years ago, that's always relevant.

If only to the mentality of the people involved, or the political structure that can house both such authoritarian worship and sectarian hatred.