"A Nation Divided, Sports United" ~ The Equality & Other Issues Thread

[ViperGTS]

If the government wanted to murder the populace with military force, no one could stop them.

I get the argument for individual protection (a handgun would suffice for this though imo), but do you honestly believe that even a heavily armed populace can do anything against tanks, drones and military grade weaponry/body armor?

It's a dated notion, man. The populace cannot defend itself in that manner anymore.

That’s a defeatist attitude. If they want to come with tanks etc...go for it. There are ways to fight against such stuff. Also, who’s to say there won’t be that stuff on both sides? There is so much firepower on the civilian side that most don’t even know about. All legally owned mind you.

If the troops stay loyal to the government, and the resistance doesn't have great outside support, the government wins. Period.

Outside support isn't really practical due to geography.

So the argument that the Second Amendment preserves the practicality of rebellion hinges on the idea that when ordered to massacre their fellow citizens, the military wouldn't obey. That claim is actually reasonable.

Unfortunately, it also hinges on the assumption that the only way to suppress the opposition is with great massacre, and that claim is harder to support. The government can degrade the opposition's ability to coordinate without massacring them all in one go.

Egypt is an instructive example. Millions of people went to Tahrir Square and toppled the government, because the military wouldn't massacre them. But the authoritarians bided their time until they could regain control without massacres of that magnitude, and they're firmly back in control.

Yeah no other country is like here and near half the troops wouldn’t do that anyways. Also, I’d just be happy to take some with me when I go so they don’t get to enjoy whatever it is they feel their are getting afterwards.

[Andrew McCeltic]

Somebody’s watched “Red Dawn” a few too many times, I think..

[Ed Pinkney]

As an outsider, the gun situation in the US is just mind boggling. The idea of holding on to some antiquated and irrelevant piece of legislation from a different time, a different world, is non-sensical. An amendment written at a time of the war of independence can not be viewed in the same way in 2017 and treat high powered semi automatic assault rifles the same as a musket.

And the level of fear and paranoia (of other people with guns, of home invasions, of your own government) is not normal. It just isn't.

The statistics are grotesque, 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations, 11700 gun deaths so far this year, 273 mass shootings. And I believe those stats don't even include the thousands of suicides by firearm.

But if Sandyhook didn't change anything, I don't see anyway this most recent one does.

[ViperGTS]

As an outsider, the gun situation in the US is just mind boggling. The idea of holding on to some antiquated and irrelevant piece of legislation from a different time, a different world, is non-sensical. An amendment written at a time of the war of independence can not be viewed in the same way in 2017 and treat high powered semi automatic assault rifles the same as a musket.

And the level of fear and paranoia (of other people with guns, of home invasions, of your own government) is not normal. It just isn't.

The statistics are grotesque, 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations, 11700 gun deaths so far this year, 273 mass shootings. And I believe those stats don't even include the thousands of suicides by firearm.

But if Sandyhook didn't change anything, I don't see anyway this most recent one does.

Once one stops fearing its government you are just a sitting duck. It’s extremely normal to not fully trust any politician elected or otherwise.

I don’t sit around and wait for something bad to happen, I just know that when an event of any kind occurs I’ll at least have a chance to do some good. Has nothing to do with Red Dawn or anything like that. I just like to be prepared. Food, water and weaponry. All three are vital to survival.

[Fencer reregistered]

As an outsider, the gun situation in the US is just mind boggling. The idea of holding on to some antiquated and irrelevant piece of legislation from a different time, a different world, is non-sensical. An amendment written at a time of the war of independence can not be viewed in the same way in 2017 and treat high powered semi automatic assault rifles the same as a musket.

And the level of fear and paranoia (of other people with guns, of home invasions, of your own government) is not normal. It just isn't.

The statistics are grotesque, 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations, 11700 gun deaths so far this year, 273 mass shootings. And I believe those stats don't even include the thousands of suicides by firearm.

But if Sandyhook didn't change anything, I don't see anyway this most recent one does.

It isn't actually from another time. It's new.

The Second Amendment was not written to grant individuals the right to have weapons, outside the context of a military reserve. Indeed, as late as 1970 or so the Chief Justice actually laughed at the idea that that's what the Constitution said.

[ViperGTS]

As an outsider, the gun situation in the US is just mind boggling. The idea of holding on to some antiquated and irrelevant piece of legislation from a different time, a different world, is non-sensical. An amendment written at a time of the war of independence can not be viewed in the same way in 2017 and treat high powered semi automatic assault rifles the same as a musket.

And the level of fear and paranoia (of other people with guns, of home invasions, of your own government) is not normal. It just isn't.

The statistics are grotesque, 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations, 11700 gun deaths so far this year, 273 mass shootings. And I believe those stats don't even include the thousands of suicides by firearm.

But if Sandyhook didn't change anything, I don't see anyway this most recent one does.

It isn't actually from another time. It's new.

The Second Amendment was not written to grant individuals the right to have weapons, outside the context of a military reserve. Indeed, as late as 1970 or so the Chief Justice actually laughed at the idea that that's what the Constitution said.

What was the strategic goal of the march on a Lexington and Concord? More specially Concord?

[Ed Pinkney]

Once one stops fearing its government you are just a sitting duck. It’s extremely normal to not fully trust any politician elected or otherwise.

I don’t sit around and wait for something bad to happen, I just know that when an event of any kind occurs I’ll at least have a chance to do some good. Has nothing to do with Red Dawn or anything like that. I just like to be prepared. Food, water and weaponry. All three are vital to survival.

It's normal to not fully trust that politicians will consistently act with altruistic motives, it is not normal to think that in a western democracy like the US (or Canada, Australia, most of Europe etc) it is permanently one step away from some sort of Orwellian, authoritarian take over that you need to doomsday prep yourself for. Just because a certain percentage of US citizens (and citizens from other countries I am sure) think that way, does not make it normal.

It isn't actually from another time. It's new.

The Second Amendment was not written to grant individuals the right to have weapons, outside the context of a military reserve. Indeed, as late as 1970 or so the Chief Justice actually laughed at the idea that that's what the Constitution said.

Certainly not well versed in the details, thanks for the heads up.

[ViperGTS]

Once one stops fearing its government you are just a sitting duck. It’s extremely normal to not fully trust any politician elected or otherwise.

I don’t sit around and wait for something bad to happen, I just know that when an event of any kind occurs I’ll at least have a chance to do some good. Has nothing to do with Red Dawn or anything like that. I just like to be prepared. Food, water and weaponry. All three are vital to survival.

It's normal to not fully trust that politicians will consistently act with altruistic motives, it is not normal to think that in a western democracy like the US (or Canada, Australia, most of Europe etc) it is permanently one step away from some sort of Orwellian, authoritarian take over that you need to doomsday prep yourself for. Just because a certain percentage of US citizens (and citizens from other countries I am sure) think that way, does not make it normal.

It isn't actually from another time. It's new.

The Second Amendment was not written to grant individuals the right to have weapons, outside the context of a military reserve. Indeed, as late as 1970 or so the Chief Justice actually laughed at the idea that that's what the Constitution said.

Certainly not well versed in the details, thanks for the heads up.

You can believe what you want and if the unimaginable happens I’m sure there will be plenty, including myself that will do their best to protect those such as you.

Also, the outside reading of the framers of the Constitution further expands on the right of the citizenry to protect itself. It’s the ultimate thing. Again, the second is the teeth of the first. There is s specific reason the second follows right after the first.

[threrf23]

David Shaw should enter politics. I'd vote for him.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/26/stanford-coach-david-shaw-offers-thoughtful-response-to-nfl-protests/

[Andrew McCeltic]

Once one stops fearing its government you are just a sitting duck. It’s extremely normal to not fully trust any politician elected or otherwise.

I don’t sit around and wait for something bad to happen, I just know that when an event of any kind occurs I’ll at least have a chance to do some good. Has nothing to do with Red Dawn or anything like that. I just like to be prepared. Food, water and weaponry. All three are vital to survival.

It's normal to not fully trust that politicians will consistently act with altruistic motives, it is not normal to think that in a western democracy like the US (or Canada, Australia, most of Europe etc) it is permanently one step away from some sort of Orwellian, authoritarian take over that you need to doomsday prep yourself for. Just because a certain percentage of US citizens (and citizens from other countries I am sure) think that way, does not make it normal.

It isn't actually from another time. It's new.

The Second Amendment was not written to grant individuals the right to have weapons, outside the context of a military reserve. Indeed, as late as 1970 or so the Chief Justice actually laughed at the idea that that's what the Constitution said.

Certainly not well versed in the details, thanks for the heads up.

You can believe what you want and if the unimaginable happens I’m sure there will be plenty, including myself that will do their best to protect those such as you.

Also, the outside reading of the framers of the Constitution further expands on the right of the citizenry to protect itself. It’s the ultimate thing. Again, the second is the teeth of the first. There is s specific reason the second follows right after the first.

Why don’t you just do Civil War re-enactments instead?

[fallguy]

I think the second amendment is preposterous and laughable. I think the interpretation of it is worse.

But that's just me.

[Almeida]

You can believe what you want and if the unimaginable happens I’m sure there will be plenty, including myself that will do their best to protect those such as you.

Like what, for example?

[ViperGTS]

Like what, for example?

Could be anything. Political upheaval. Natural disaster on a massive scale. Power grid failure. Asteroid impact. Zombies.

Anything that will stress law enforcement to the point they break or are unable to respond. Basically whenever 911 isn’t available.

[ViperGTS]

It's normal to not fully trust that politicians will consistently act with altruistic motives, it is not normal to think that in a western democracy like the US (or Canada, Australia, most of Europe etc) it is permanently one step away from some sort of Orwellian, authoritarian take over that you need to doomsday prep yourself for. Just because a certain percentage of US citizens (and citizens from other countries I am sure) think that way, does not make it normal.






Certainly not well versed in the details, thanks for the heads up.

You can believe what you want and if the unimaginable happens I’m sure there will be plenty, including myself that will do their best to protect those such as you.

Also, the outside reading of the framers of the Constitution further expands on the right of the citizenry to protect itself. It’s the ultimate thing. Again, the second is the teeth of the first. There is s specific reason the second follows right after the first.

Why don’t you just do Civil War re-enactments instead?

That makes no sense. Apparently you can’t comprehend self defense, or why the Bill of Rights was written as it was. In a civilized society, it’s the job of its citizens to protect each other from themselves and the government.

[Andrew McCeltic]

Like what, for example?

Could be anything. Political upheaval. Natural disaster on a massive scale. Power grid failure. Asteroid impact. Zombies.

Anything that will stress law enforcement to the point they break or are unable to respond. Basically whenever 911 isn’t available.

I mean, these are all unlikely events, and it’s not inevitable that the result would be “Mad Max.” What are the reports about crime in Puerto Rico since the hurricane?

[ViperGTS]

Like what, for example?

Could be anything. Political upheaval. Natural disaster on a massive scale. Power grid failure. Asteroid impact. Zombies.

Anything that will stress law enforcement to the point they break or are unable to respond. Basically whenever 911 isn’t available.

I mean, these are all unlikely events, and it’s not inevitable that the result would be “Mad Max.” What are the reports about crime in Puerto Rico since the hurricane?

For now they are up a tick. The real problems haven’t started yet. If they go much longer without food and necessities who knows what it will turn into. That is a fear down there from what I’ve read.

Again. Just because it’s a remote possibility, doesn’t mean it’s not a possibility.

[Andrew McCeltic]

Could be anything. Political upheaval. Natural disaster on a massive scale. Power grid failure. Asteroid impact. Zombies.

Anything that will stress law enforcement to the point they break or are unable to respond. Basically whenever 911 isn’t available.

I mean, these are all unlikely events, and it’s not inevitable that the result would be “Mad Max.” What are the reports about crime in Puerto Rico since the hurricane?

For now they are up a tick. The real problems haven’t started yet. If they go much longer without food and necessities who knows what it will turn into. That is a fear down there from what I’ve read.

Again. Just because it’s a remote possibility, doesn’t mean it’s not a possibility.

So how would an assault rifle, or ten, help you, in those circumstances?

[ViperGTS]

I mean, these are all unlikely events, and it’s not inevitable that the result would be “Mad Max.” What are the reports about crime in Puerto Rico since the hurricane?

For now they are up a tick. The real problems haven’t started yet. If they go much longer without food and necessities who knows what it will turn into. That is a fear down there from what I’ve read.

Again. Just because it’s a remote possibility, doesn’t mean it’s not a possibility.

So how would an assault rifle, or ten, help you, in those circumstances?

There is no such thing as an assault rifle. Just like there is no assault knife or toothpick. But, if you are talking about a rifle then it is very handy.

[Fencer reregistered]

As an outsider, the gun situation in the US is just mind boggling. The idea of holding on to some antiquated and irrelevant piece of legislation from a different time, a different world, is non-sensical. An amendment written at a time of the war of independence can not be viewed in the same way in 2017 and treat high powered semi automatic assault rifles the same as a musket.

And the level of fear and paranoia (of other people with guns, of home invasions, of your own government) is not normal. It just isn't.

The statistics are grotesque, 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations, 11700 gun deaths so far this year, 273 mass shootings. And I believe those stats don't even include the thousands of suicides by firearm.

But if Sandyhook didn't change anything, I don't see anyway this most recent one does.

It isn't actually from another time. It's new.

The Second Amendment was not written to grant individuals the right to have weapons, outside the context of a military reserve. Indeed, as late as 1970 or so the Chief Justice actually laughed at the idea that that's what the Constitution said.

What was the strategic goal of the march on a Lexington and Concord? More specially Concord?

It was to take cannons away from a well-regulated militia.

[Fencer reregistered]

Once one stops fearing its government you are just a sitting duck. It’s extremely normal to not fully trust any politician elected or otherwise.

I don’t sit around and wait for something bad to happen, I just know that when an event of any kind occurs I’ll at least have a chance to do some good. Has nothing to do with Red Dawn or anything like that. I just like to be prepared. Food, water and weaponry. All three are vital to survival.

It's normal to not fully trust that politicians will consistently act with altruistic motives, it is not normal to think that in a western democracy like the US (or Canada, Australia, most of Europe etc) it is permanently one step away from some sort of Orwellian, authoritarian take over that you need to doomsday prep yourself for. Just because a certain percentage of US citizens (and citizens from other countries I am sure) think that way, does not make it normal.

It isn't actually from another time. It's new.

The Second Amendment was not written to grant individuals the right to have weapons, outside the context of a military reserve. Indeed, as late as 1970 or so the Chief Justice actually laughed at the idea that that's what the Constitution said.

Certainly not well versed in the details, thanks for the heads up.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856 sketches the political history. It's from 2014.