Obama: Greatest regret - not bringing in gun control

[Alistair]

I don't feel the need to keep loaded firearms lying about the house, but at times I have, as when sleeping in a cabin in grizzly bear country, or a tent in Canada with wolves tip-toeing around it while I slept, or when there was a burglar breaking in cars ( I caught him ).

But the point is that it is not for me, or you, or Vipa, to decide what is an acceptable risk for someone else. Only they can do that, because it is a subjective value. It is none of my business.

Modern man is so indoctrinated by state education and media, to think that what he, or "the majority", or some "vocal minority", FEEL is the right thing, should be made into law and imposed on the rest of the world. That is arrogant. And since most of these opinions are not really their own, formed by careful consideration, but are the opinions indoctrinated into them by the truly arrogant leaders, the notion becomes really ludicrous. Our forefathers wouldn't give these silly discussions the time of day. They would not permit even 1/10 the controls which modern man thinks is normal.

You are of course correct. I am but one man, and one of a markedly different culture as well. Sadly, as far as your political system goes, a person, assuming his is a part of the 'majority' or indeed the 'vocal minority' assuming the majority don't vote, can make the law based exclusively on his feelings, it is called democracy, and whilst a pretty rubbish system is still the best one we have. In the past these controls probably wouldn't be allowed, but that is just the way it goes, and has little input on the political will of today.

As for arrogance and indoctrination, well maybe I am. but bear in mind that from what I have seen of the american voice on this matter (yes, small sample size, stalking based forum etc etc) is the ridiculously paranoid viewpoint that no matter what that actual reasoning behind a law is, it is being put in place purely to take away your right to bear arms and for the government to control the populace, no matter what the actual reasoning behind it is. There has to be a bit of give and take here, surely?
Also, please don't lump me in with Vipa, i would like to think that I am willing to change my opinion based on evidence, which is why i entered this conversation in the first place; to get a better idea of what the situation is in the states.

 

[Vipa]

You are of course correct. I am but one man, and one of a markedly different culture as well. Sadly, as far as your political system goes, a person, assuming his is a part of the 'majority' or indeed the 'vocal minority' assuming the majority don't vote, can make the law based exclusively on his feelings, it is called democracy, and whilst a pretty rubbish system is still the best one we have. In the past these controls probably wouldn't be allowed, but that is just the way it goes, and has little input on the political will of today.

As for arrogance and indoctrination, well maybe I am. but bear in mind that from what I have seen of the american voice on this matter (yes, small sample size, stalking based forum etc etc) is the ridiculously paranoid viewpoint that no matter what that actual reasoning behind a law is, it is being put in place purely to take away your right to bear arms and for the government to control the populace, no matter what the actual reasoning behind it is. There has to be a bit of give and take here, surely?
Also, please don't lump me in with Vipa, i would like to think that I am willing to change my opinion based on evidence, which is why i entered this conversation in the first place; to get a better idea of what the situation is in the states.

Gee thanks Alistair old buddy!

 

[Alistair]

Gee thanks Alistair old buddy!

Sorry mate, but having had this argument twice now, and having read your responses to at least 3 others on this thread alone, the writing is on the wall! Nothing personal eh?

 

[Southern]

America is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional republic. The amount of democracy which has been put in place is intentional, to subvert the system and remove the limits on the size and power of government at all levels, especially federal. Corrupt politicians have done this since Year One, because they crave power, and handling lots of money is how many of them become filthy rich. Democracy is a fraud, as much as socialism is, and especially democratic socialism.

When I speak of "arrogance' and "tryanny", I am mostly referring to the small arrogance and small tyranny which is the natural impulse of all people. Good societies work to educate their citizens to overcome these impulses and not extrapolate their feelings into wishes for government to do what they wish they could dictate on others. Bad societies exploit these human weaknesses by pandering to them, while steering the emotions into what they can claim is mob support for the oppression of the minority on every issue.

That is why, when the ballot box fails - as it always has - you have the bullet box, to clean things up.

 

[Alistair]

America is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional republic. The amount of democracy which has been put in place is intentional, to subvert the system and remove the limits on the size and power of government at all levels, especially federal. Corrupt politicians have done this since Year One, because they crave power, and handling lots of money is how many of them become filthy rich. Democracy is a fraud, as much as socialism is, and especially democratic socialism.

When I speak of "arrogance' and "tryanny", I am mostly referring to the small arrogance and small tyranny which is the natural impulse of all people. Good societies work to educate their citizens to overcome these impulses and not extrapolate their feelings into wishes for government to do what they wish they could dictate on others. Bad societies exploit these human weaknesses by pandering to them, while steering the emotions into what they can claim is mob support for the oppression of the minority on every issue.

That is why, when the ballot box fails - as it always has - you have the bullet box, to clean things up.

Whilst that should be a big difference, that fact of the matter is that just as in Britain, the process of choosing your leaders is effectively a glorified popularity contest based on the concept of one man one vote and all the other trappings of democracy. Fraud or no, that is effectively what you have ended up with, and it seems to work well enough most of the time.
I am not sure that the ballot box is as doomed to fail as you believe, and although corruption is to be looked out for, it is likely to be legal countermeasures that sort the system and not an armed revolution. Again,Ii must reiterate from a previous comment, this isn't impossible, even in todays world, but the government would have to pull a ridiculous amount of doodoo before the people would even think to do anything. I propose that in modern day America, and indeed any country with elections, the government, or politicians at least fears the populace more for their voting and economic power than their military might. after all, you might topple the government through firepower, but you will be able to sit back and watch it fall if you stop paying taxes. This is, at least in my view, how it should be.

 

[Redleicester]

Not in the UK, where most people are disarmed.

Unarmed.


It's a very, very different thing.

 

[Southern]

Point taken. The majority of in the UK are unarmed, and the minority were disarmed.

Since most of us agree that the gun bans did nothing measurable to decrease crime, and the police admit that was not the intent, then how is it "paranoid" to suspect the real ulterior motives of the proponents of disarming honest citizens?

How many democracies have lasted more than a century or two before decaying into anarchy, bankruptcy, and dictatorship? I can only think of one: Switzerland, which has term limits for holding office, and universal firearms ownership and militia service.

When you see the riots during the blackout in New York City, or the looters in South Central Los Angeles being driven away by armed Korean storekeepers, or the looters last month in Baltimore, or the revolts by unarmed Czechs and Hungarians being crushed by communist soldiers, how can anyone say it is "delusional" to think you could protect yourself by being armed? What is your plan for survival for being caught in a situation like mass robbery, or a natural disaster which leaves a million people starving?

 

[Mungo]

How many democracies have lasted more than a century or two before decaying into anarchy, bankruptcy, and dictatorship? I can only think of one: Switzerland, which has term limits for holding office, and universal firearms ownership and militia service.

Um...I rather think the UK counts as a democracy (even if we do still have an ornamental monarchy), and the last time we were plunged into anarchy was the Civil War - which ended over 300 years ago. Of course, I suspect you may define us as some form of dictatorship, but I think most of us who live here would beg to differ.

As for your example of the Czechs and Hungarians being crushed: I thought we'd covered this. Whether or not a democratic groundswell prevails or is crushed in a modern states with large and well equipped militaries has nothing to do with whether or not the people are armed. It seems to be entirely determined by the attitude of the military. Where the military is opposed to reform, the people get crushed. Where the military supports reform or chooses (for whatever reason) to remain neutral, the people prevail. The central European uprisings of the 1960s were crushed. The popular movements of the 1980s were not. The extent to which the people were armed had not changed - what had changed was the attitude of the leaders and the military. Similarly the Arab Spring: in Egypt, the army remained more or less neutral (or slightly pro reform, under pressure from the US), the people were largely unarmed, and the regime fell. In Syria, the military was (mostly) pro-Assad, and even though the people were armed, supported and trained (and supplemented by deresrtions from the military), the regime is still fighting.

I agree that once upon a time, when warfare was simpler and the tools, logistics and training required to fight were not much beyond what was available on the average farm, there was some sense in arming citizens as way to protect against invasion or despotism. But modern warfare is very, very different - and citizens (even those with miliatry experience) stand very little realistic chance against a functional modern military. It is a quaint and almost eccentric affectation to think that they do. Yes, they can probably sustain a prolonged and nasty localised insurgency, but overthrow a regime? Very unlikely unless a substantial portion of the military joins them (and that is rather different, amounting to a civil war).

 

[Mungo]

Anyway - this really amounts to a faith based argument.

You talk about indoctrination - I would suggest that you are as indoctrinated as you claim us to be. You are as beholden to a culture that distrusts the state, worhips the indvidual and fears socialism, as we are to culture that trusts the state, is ambivalent to the individual and sees value in socialism. It is unlikely that either is wholly wrong or evil.

You mention arrogance a lot - and I would suggest that you are in danger of seeming extremely arrogant indeed, so glibly dismissing our values for no other reason than that they contradict yours. You have to be aware that your values really are as much the product of the 'propoganda' to which you are exposed as ours are.

So - as with all faith based arguments, where opinions are largely based on personal conviction, upbringing and social environment, and where evidence is selectively deployed and interpreted to support a pre-exisiting view, it is very unlikely that either of us will substantially change thier minds. We will both go away convinced we are right and the other a fool.

 

[JabaliHunter]

I think that the fundamental difference is this. I am not aware of any country that is a true democracy - we all choose a set of people to make decisions on our behalf, we do not make the decisions ourselves.

On the one hand you have those who believe that ultimately no-one else has the right to make decisions on their behalf, and while they will tolerate decisions that they don't like and play along for a while in the hope that come the next set of elections someone will reverse the unliked decision, ultimately they want a sanction which to them represents the ultimate ability to defy things that they see as unjust or tyrannical. To do that, many believe that you have to be armed.

On the other hand you have people who are willing or resigned to abiding by the decisions of others even where they are contrary to the individual's or minorities' desires. In those societies people trust that decisions are made for the greater good and are thus prepared to tolerate unpopular decisions.

Under tyrannical circumstances, the people do have the option to rebel and thus we see popular uprisings and civil wars. The difference is that some populations have been disarmed and are ultimately at the mercy of outside support, political or military. Power prefers this option because the status quo can be preserved for longer. If the population is armed then the balance of power shifts, even if the armed militia is crushed by a more powerful military.

Yes the Eastern European uprisings succeeded, but if you read interviews with Putin you will see that there was a very fine line between a military response and not, which boiled down to an internal power struggle in the Kremlin. It could have gone the other way and just like in Syria I doubt whether the U.S. or UK would have responded militarily. The Egypt uprising failed as the military didn't like the popular outcome and stepped back in. The Syrian uprising is drawn out because the regime chose to fight, but the rebels were armed or able to arm themsves and have drawn support from some allies.

Ultimately, if you need to rise up, you face being crushed whether armed or not, but if circumstances are so bad that you rise up anyway then you probably see that as an acceptable risk and it doesn't matter if you face superior firepower. Unless the decision is taken to flatten entire cities then history shows that clearing houses in dense urban environments one by one is hard work and exacts a heavy toll on both sides regardless of firepower. In those circumstance those in power would prefer that the people were not armed. There is clearly a sizeable number in the U.S. who don't want to take that chance.

The need and right for everyday self-, family and property protection is a related but separate issue that has been covered already.

 

[JTO]

I wonder if your attitude would be the same if it was one of your children killed in Dunblain?

My attitude would be irrational for a short time, I suspect.

 

[Vipa]

Just changing the subject slightly.. Something the last couple of posts have made me think of...

Democracy is a very strange beast indeed, perfectly illustrated by nations such as Egypt..

We elect our leaders and our leaders employ and command the armies.. But... If the armies decide they don't like what the elected government are doing, they just step in and take control..

So... That begs the question... In any 'democracy, ' who is really in charge, who really has the power?

It would appear to me that the answer to that question is 'the generals' or to put it another way, those who have command and control of the armed forces.. So.....

Is democracy real or is it just a fleeting illusion and a state allowed temporarily by the military commanders... As long as they approve of the job the elected government is doing? Or.. To put it another way, is democracy (as we know it) just dictatorship with a sugar coating of the illusion we have choice... Just to make it more palatable?

 

[sharkey]

"Democracy is the means by which we get the government we deserve". The problem we have now is that we plebs don't get much choice in the candidates that the major parties give us to choose from. Also the length of terms of government & our short memories about broken promises means they only start to listen 6 months out from the next election. Thank goodness for the judicial system & the separation of powers, I have much more faith in judges & juries than I do in politicians.

Sharkey

 

[Southern]

I agree that once upon a time, when warfare was simpler and the tools, logistics and training required to fight were not much beyond what was available on the average farm, there was some sense in arming citizens as way to protect against invasion or despotism. But modern warfare is very, very different - and citizens (even those with miliatry experience) stand very little realistic chance against a functional modern military. It is a quaint and almost eccentric affectation to think that they do. Yes, they can probably sustain a prolonged and nasty localised insurgency, but overthrow a regime? Very unlikely unless a substantial portion of the military joins them (and that is rather different, amounting to a civil war).

To repeat myself: This is not my opinion, but the opinion of the Founders of the USA, that an armed populace was vital to discourage despots, based upon their study of every elected government in history. And the efficacy of that today has been confirmed by the US Army War College analysis for President Clinton, concluding that the regular forces would not last six weeks if they tried to round up firearms. This study also included extensive scientific surveys of active duty military officers and enlisted men, as well as civilians, to assess the degree of resistance and refusal to obey orders.

You talk about indoctrination - I would suggest that you are as indoctrinated as you claim us to be. You are as beholden to a culture that distrusts the state, worhips the indvidual and fears socialism, as we are to culture that trusts the state, is ambivalent to the individual and sees value in socialism. It is unlikely that either is wholly wrong or evil.

I am a member of the last generation to be taught in school of the history of forms of government and the reasons for the design and structure of modern democratic republics. We studied major factors such as Napoleon and Bismark. Today's students are taught no such history, but just pure indoctrination of worshipping "diversity" and the doctrines of logical positivism, that whatever is law, is right.

You mention arrogance a lot - and I would suggest that you are in danger of seeming extremely arrogant indeed, so glibly dismissing our values for no other reason than that they contradict yours. You have to be aware that your values really are as much the product of the 'propoganda' to which you are exposed as ours are.

I don't dismiss your values at all. I simply refute the notion that there is a "gun problem" in America, Canada, Switzerland or among any civilized people. I am pointing out that one man's personal values are not to be made into laws which override the freedom of other people who have different values than your own. Nor ten men outvoting one. They have no right, no moral authority. Most people in American don't understand that, as well. For people to have fuzzy notions of what are rights, and bogus notions such as a "right to housing", are the result of intentional education to create a population which can be manipulated to accept larger government and higher taxes, ceding more power to self-appointed "leaders". "Gun control" is just part of that deception.

 

[timbrayford]

So gun control in the UK is really effective then and they prevent all manner of malcontents from obtaining banned weapons such as handguns Liam Lyburd guilty of college murder plot - BBC News ?

 

[Alistair]

To repeat myself: This is not my opinion, but the opinion of the Founders of the USA, that an armed populace was vital to discourage despots, based upon their study of every elected government in history. And the efficacy of that today has been confirmed by the US Army War College analysis for President Clinton, concluding that the regular forces would not last six weeks if they tried to round up firearms. This study also included extensive scientific surveys of active duty military officers and enlisted men, as well as civilians, to assess the degree of resistance and refusal to obey orders.

Yes, but I suspect that the last sentence is the most important one. In such a situation as the study describes, success by the populace hinges almost exclusively on the fact that many service personnel would defect, joining the civilians and taking their hardware with them. People often forget that the military, paradoxical though it sounds, is effectively made up of civilians. If enough of these people agree with the issue at hand and join the 'freedom fighters' or whatever, then they will win the resulting civil war. If most of the army doesn't support it, or those high up with authority over the rank and file don't then the uprising will fail.
This is the case in any civil war, irrespective of whether the populace in general is armed. Weight of numbers coupled with military support or even apathy will lead to success. Even in Britain there are 141,775 people with firearm certificates and 580,653 shotgun certs (2010 data) whilst our active service personnel number 199,620 (2014), including support roles, so in theory, banning guns in the uk could end badly. It wouldn't purely because a.) most of those people wouldn't fight over it (as is the case in the US I suspect) and b.) Very, very few people from the armed forces would join such an uprising, and certainly none in positions of authority. Admittedly, most of those would only have a shotgun to rely on, but if Russian military action in WW2 proved anything, it is that a numerically superior force can prevail over a technologically superior one, even if they only have one bolt action rifle between the two of them.
In this case the only difference between the US and the UK is one of magnitude.

 

[Hereford]

I think the U.S. should be careful what it wishes for - it may well come true.....

 

[Southern]

In this case the only difference between the US and the UK is one of magnitude.

True, to a large degree. In the American Revolution, only 10% of the population fought for, or materially supported, the Colonial side. Only 5% actually fought an at least one battle. We know that because groups like the Daughters of the American Revolution require direct ancestry who fought or materially supported the troops in order for one of their descendants to join the society. Yet they prevailed.

There is a difference:

A significant number of Americans, like myself, are aware of all their ancestors, why they came to America, the hostile conditions they most likely escaped, and why they and each successive ancestor became who they became - by choice. For a long time, America functioned quite well with almost no government interference in everyday life. People learned that they not only did not need much government, but that the normal size throughout history was just way too large to be honest and beneficial to anyone but those running it. It is mostly nothing but a means of transferring wealth from the productive class to the indolent class and the ruling class.

The most effective thing, of course, is knowledge, and having a population who knows history and political theory, and is somewhat homogeneous. That is why the power-hungry politicians seek to subvert the common culture through state control of education, graduated income taxes to prevent the rise of a middle class with enough leisure time for political participation, and the watering down of heritage by bringing in the most uneducated immigrants who are encouraged to not assimilate. Fear of non-existent dangers (mass shootings, assault weapons, global warming, pesticides, nuclear accidents, drought, hurricanes, etc ) is used to convince people they need to surrender personal liberty.

 

[Alistair]

True, to a large degree. In the American Revolution, only 10% of the population fought for, or materially supported, the Colonial side. Only 5% actually fought an at least one battle. We know that because groups like the Daughters of the American Revolution require direct ancestry who fought or materially supported the troops in order for one of their descendants to join the society. Yet they prevailed.

There is a difference:

A significant number of Americans, like myself, are aware of all their ancestors, why they came to America, the hostile conditions they most likely escaped, and why they and each successive ancestor became who they became - by choice. For a long time, America functioned quite well with almost no government interference in everyday life. People learned that they not only did not need much government, but that the normal size throughout history was just way too large to be honest and beneficial to anyone but those running it. It is mostly nothing but a means of transferring wealth from the productive class to the indolent class and the ruling class.

The most effective thing, of course, is knowledge, and having a population who knows history and political theory, and is somewhat homogeneous. That is why the power-hungry politicians seek to subvert the common culture through state control of education, graduated income taxes to prevent the rise of a middle class with enough leisure time for political participation, and the watering down of heritage by bringing in the most uneducated immigrants who are encouraged to not assimilate. Fear of non-existent dangers (mass shootings, assault weapons, global warming, pesticides, nuclear accidents, drought, hurricanes, etc ) is used to convince people they need to surrender personal liberty.

All strictly true, if rather oversimplified. I think you would be surprised how many people in Britain have looked into their ancestry as well. My Grandfather for instance traced his side of the family back to 1850 or so, and I had a friend at primary school whose family had lived in the same house since 1680 and on the same site for at least 100 years before that. Many others have traced their family back just as far.

As for the power-hungry politicians, it is very hard to argue that the effect of the laws described isn't as you say, but I still maintain it is at least a little paranoid to say that the laws were implemented to achieve this effect. From a UK perspective I would be more inclined to say that the laws were implemented for convenience sake, or out of a perceived moral duty to be accepting of others culture and heritage, whilst the 'watering down of heritage' is either an unplanned side effect or seen as the lesser evil. Most likely the first to be honest. Put it this way, I am generally in favour of accepting other peoples religious beliefs, as I suspect are most Brits. I don't see this as betraying my countrys cultural heritage as a Christian nation, so much as just doing what seems like the right thing to support the personal liberty of British citizens. It is hard to say whether this stance will have an effect on our culture, or what that effect will be, but whatever occurs, it wasn't why I support such laws now.

 

[Southern]

You are right insofar as many politicians are just as soft-headed as the constituents who elected them. But they are not the real leaders of the direction of history.

If you read the plans and methods of those who shaped communism, socialism, and secular atheism, from the the 1770s and the French Revolution, through the 20th Century, they describe in detail the social changes I mention above as their tools. They are not acting out of charity, tolerance or naive wishful thinking. Western Society today, lulled asleep by the collapse of the USSR, has fallen under the control of those persons still implementing the road map of Lenin. It is all there in their writings, past and present.

To bring it all back around to the topic of this thread, understanding Barack Obama's socialist writings and his being raised by Stalinists and Muslims is vital to placing his desire to disarm those who adhere to Western Civilization into his entire agenda. He does not care one whit about crime or the innocent victims of criminals with guns.