ClumsyMonkey.net

i thought it might be fun to give this topic it's own thread.

in my most recent post in the curfew thread i pointed out that gun control and curfews are the two main tools of the totalitarian government.

i'm sure there are many supporters here of gun control and i would just like to ask them this: do you not see the problem in creating a situation wherein the only persons with guns are those employed by the state?

how, in this weaponless society, are you going to prevent the state from dominating you in every respect?

Tad bit paranoid arn't you?

I can understand both sides of the issue, but I don't see protection from a regime to be a good reason. I think the chances of a menacing state such as you fear becoming a reality is very slim in Canada. If it ever did happen, I would be one of the first to join a resistance, but I don't see that happening.

Not to say our governement is perfect, far from it. It's corrupt, bigoted, violent and destructive. But as of now, it's one of the better ones in the world, and there are few other realistic alternatives. Democracy is the government that affords the most freedom to it's citizens, and although greatly flawed and possibly in need of reformatting, human beings are pack animals who work best in organised groups. I understand the basic's of Anarchy, and like socialism on paper it looks perfect. But implementing it in reality is near immpossble at this stage of human evolution. So while I agree that Anarchy would afford the most freedom to us, it's immpossible to use in the real world.

I think that a society should not have access to devastating lethal weapons such as guns period. A nation in my view, would only need a small armed military for the protection of it's borders only, under the control of the population. Of course, like Anarchy this idea doesn't hold up either, because it's immpossible to stop illegal weapons from sneaking in, and ruining the whole balance. Therefore, I say that we limit as much as possible access to weapons, and slowly scale back police force weapons as times change.


I know I've been all over the place with that one, I've just been writing as it comes to me. But I'd like Chris to explain how one would keep human beings from classifying themselves, and forming into organized groups. [/b]

i am not paranoid, i am merely able to recognize the ever present possibility that the state my turn on it's citizens. this is a rare thing indeed in north america these days which is depressing.

anyways, while all of that was nice and thoughtful, you didn't answer my question at all.

as you recongize that there is at the very least a POSSIBILITY that this law could be used for evil, how can you support it? the consequences for doing so if this possibility was actualised would be dire, to say the least.

i wonder why it is that protecting yourself from the state concerns you less than what you believe to be is protecting yourslf from other people? stastically, you are more likely to be killed by the state than traffic accident, homicide and alcohol COMBINED. the government is the leading killer of human beings since the turn of the 20th century, killing over 190 million people in just over 100 years.

and we wouldn't try to keep people from classifying, organizing or doing ANYTHING, save for trying to make me do it too.

starvingeyes wrote: the government is the leading killer of human beings since the turn of the 20th century, killing over 190 million people in just over 100 years.

Please explain

I'm guessing that statistic includes wars. But that's just a guess.

actually, the statistician who compiled the figures is talking only about "murder by government"- either the direct killing of a person by the state or someone working for it, or by the state creating circumstances that lead to inevitable death (stalin deporting people to siberia etc, wrongful imprisonment which leads to death etc.)

in fact, when i said you are more likely to be killed by the state than by homicide, traffic accident and alcohol combined, i was OMITTING the word "war" from that sentance, which appears on the original document. i consider war to be government killing, so i include it.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

read all about it.

starvingeyes wrote:how, in this weaponless society, are you going to prevent the state from dominating you in every respect?

I think you know better than to say that we live in a weaponless society. And I think you know better than to say that gun control limits access to guns, when all it does is keep track of who has them. We know who in the government has the guns. They wear uniforms. If it is an us versus them situation as you make it sound, isn't the safest mode of preventing domination on either side (whether it is totalitarianism, or revolution/rebellion) is to know who on each side has the weapons. It's the same principle as knowing which countries have the bomb.

Now, if you're suggesting that gun control is a complete limiting of access to guns, what type of force do you expect the government to use that they don't already use? Keep in mind that there is typically a reaction to outlandish behaviour by a government, and considering the size and strength of Canada's armed forces and police, I think they would be fighting a losing battle against a population that was uprising, even without guns (although I'm not too sure where they vanished to?)

In a day and age where governments have less power over their citizens due to neo-liberalism, I think if anything states are losing power over their people, not gaining. Then again I'm speaking in regards to Canada and gun legislation. you could probably argue otherwise about a different country

Umm... I'm curious what the statistic would be for North America. I know what goes on and has gone on in the rest of the world, but it's what goes on in North America that affects my views on gun control, the legal system, democracy, government, etc.

They put mind control chips in the drinking water!

*looks over shoulder*

*runs in circles*

*dons tinfoil hat*

I was hoping someone would crack out the tinfoil hats!

And you used the word "dons", so you get two points!

J-Neli wrote:I think you know better than to say that we live in a weaponless society.

you're right, we don't. i was speaking in the hypothetical, following the principle of gun control to it's philosophical root. i guess i didn't make that clear enough. that being said though, it's not like the guns we are allowed are enough to successfully mount a stand against the state.

And I think you know better than to say that gun control limits access to guns, when all it does is keep track of who has them. We know who in the government has the guns. They wear uniforms. If it is an us versus them situation as you make it sound, isn't the safest mode of preventing domination on either side (whether it is totalitarianism, or revolution/rebellion) is to know who on each side has the weapons. It's the same principle as knowing which countries have the bomb.

i should think a better way to prevent one group from dominating another is to level the playing field. as it stands, the government has access to all the good weapons while we get stuck with guns that can barely puncture kevlar.

Now, if you're suggesting that gun control is a complete limiting of access to guns, what type of force do you expect the government to use that they don't already use? Keep in mind that there is typically a reaction to outlandish behaviour by a government, and considering the size and strength of Canada's armed forces and police, I think they would be fighting a losing battle against a population that was uprising, even without guns (although I'm not too sure where they vanished to?)

i agree. the population advantage is insurmountable. i would challenge your belief, however, that the populations of canada could be moved to revolt against gun control even to this degree. my question was not so much "could we win a revolution without guns?" more "how do you expect to defend yourself from the police?"

In a day and age where governments have less power over their citizens due to neo-liberalism, I think if anything states are losing power over their people, not gaining.

hmm, interesting that you think states are losing their power, when i think that they are clearly increasing their hold. as democratic governments MUST increase in size every year, each year they encroach more and more on our rights and freedoms. in the last year alone i have witnessed some absolutely astounding attacks on property rights, for example.

Sweet!! *adds points to her hoard*

hhahahahahahahaha @ tinfoil hats.

you guys are right, i'm out of my mind. there is no way ever that the government might use it's powers for evil, not possible. this is democracy, we have checks and balances, right?

it's not like democracy has ever lead to totalitarianism in the past. it's not like the government killed 190 million people in the last 100 years (nice of you guys to show your sympathy by making fun of them. classy!)

i'm clearly paranoid. there is no chance at all that i could be right.

3 words: wait and see.

K.

*waits*

the open minds in the forum are astounding today.

kathy14 i don't even know who you are so i'm not sure what i could've done to piss you off so much, but please fill me in and i'd love to sort it out with you.

as far as it goes for you nikki, well, don't count on me breaking you out of any concentration camps during the revolution, y'know what i mean?

Right back atcha.

starvingeyes wrote:the open minds in the forum are astounding today.

kathy14 i don't even know who you are so i'm not sure what i could've done to piss you off so much, but please fill me in and i'd love to sort it out with you.

as far as it goes for you nikki, well, don't count on me breaking you out of any concentration camps during the revolution, y'know what i mean?

Why do you assume that everyone has to be pissed off at you to find what you say offensive or disagree with you?