Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part III Covfefe

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
35,357
They have rules of engagement I believe. This would be a human rights violation of note granted if said militia was not the aggressor. I suspect (Just a gut feel) many individualists in America also align with trump supporters to a large extent, but would turn on Trump the second this happened - if they're being consistent with their principles.
But the 2A exists to protect against the government becoming a dictatorship of that kind, so if it came to that, the government simply would cease to care about human rights. And the idea that constitutional rights would protect you in that scenario is laughable.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
35,357
If all those protestors were armed, the army wouldn't be as happy to pull the trigger firstly.
Why not? If they're armed they're more of an immediate threat and tensions are escalated from the outset.

Secondly, if you are thinking a serious resistance, it wouldn't be a bunch of people in an open area waiting for the army to come and mow them down, so your argument is a bit of a strawman if you think that people would logically do this in said scenario.
That's not what a strawman argument is. But it is a valid scenario - army opens fire to suppress armed protestors, can they fire back?

Thirdly, by definition, the army of a country has to be smaller than its civilian population in order for a totalitarian government to function. If it were not, then most citizens would have guns anyway. Which means that an armed civilian population can always hurt an army.

Fourthly, totalitarian situations happen when governments kick your door down and take you away to prison. Do you think that would be easier or more difficult for the government when most houses have a gun in them.

Fifty, controlling a civilian population that has guns would be a nightmare for the army. You just have to look at what happened in Iraq, and they didn't even have the right to guns before the US invasion. The US wiped out the military but couldn't remove the militia.

So no, you are incorrect.
All these examples are irrelevant to constitutional rights. The constitution currently gives you the right to arm yourself against the government; but a totalitarian regime would have already discarded the whole idea of the constitution. I'm not saying a militia would eventually have no power against the government, but a totalitarian government will never willingly allow its subjects to rebel against it, and the constitution is worthless against that reality.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,204
But the 2A exists to protect against the government becoming a dictatorship of that kind, so if it came to that, the government simply would cease to care about human rights. And the idea that constitutional rights would protect you in that scenario is laughable.
If the government is the aggressor then sure you would be morally justified in shooting back. The outcome is one thing that is out of my control but the morals of the matter is what I'm more concerned with.

You could be quite right in saying a morally sound activist group stands no chance against an oppressive government even with 2A in place (Though some scenarios suggest the army itself being split into the respective factions were this to occur - remember they have families back home).

But we would hope that a morally sound society won't allow things to get there either thus keeping the principles intact even without threat.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,000
Why not? If they're armed they're more of an immediate threat and tensions are escalated from the outset.
Aren't you the lot who say that AR 15 are dangerous weapons that are capable of mass killing?

The opposite actually happens. The army wouldn't want to engage in firing on armed people, especially when they can fire back and are outnumbered.

That's not what a strawman argument is. But it is a valid scenario - army opens fire to suppress armed protestors, can they fire back?
They will fire back because that is what someone with a gun will do.

All these examples are irrelevant to constitutional rights. The constitution currently gives you the right to arm yourself against the government; but a totalitarian regime would have already discarded the whole idea of the constitution. I'm not saying a militia would eventually have no power against the government, but a totalitarian government will never willingly allow its subjects to rebel against it, and the constitution is worthless against that reality.
Which is why allowing people to have a piece of reality like a gun to protect themselves is a safeguard against it. The right exists right, which means that people have the force to protect themselves.

If the government led by AOC or some radical moron tried to radically disarm people, there would be a real fight on the government's hands. Which means that they would try and break down that right in small pieces. Which is EXACTLY what the Democrats do.

Exactly the same thing is happening in South Africa with regards to property. The government will change the constitution, but won't do much with it. Then slowly they will push the overton's window, like what happened in Venezuela.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
35,357
If the government is the aggressor then sure you would be morally justified in shooting back. The outcome is one thing that is out of my control but the morals of the matter is what I'm more concerned with.
The morality is that a logically inconsistent clause by the founding fathers, which only really has relevance to that period of time, has been extrapolated as the basis for broad unrestricted gun ownership, which led to the US having the highest gun homicide rate in the world by a mile.

You could be quite right in saying a morally sound activist group stands no chance against an oppressive government even with 2A in place (Though some scenarios suggest the army itself being split into the respective factions were this to occur - remember they have families back home).

But we would hope that a morally sound society won't allow things to get there either thus keeping the principles intact even without threat.
I'm not saying they stand no chance even with 2a in place. I'm saying the second amendment will be nullified when the government reaches the point of becoming totalitarian. I simply can't see the government saying "well we wanted to subjugate them and snuff their rebellion but those damn 2nd amendment rights are too strong."
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,204
The morality is that a logically inconsistent clause by the founding fathers, which only really has relevance to that period of time, has been extrapolated as the basis for broad unrestricted gun ownership, which led to the US having the highest gun homicide rate in the world by a mile.
Ah gotcha. Yeah the unrestricted part I would also not agree with entirely (except maybe on private property only). When farm/plot land and private roads were more prominent it probably made some sense I suppose.

I'm not saying they stand no chance even with 2a in place. I'm saying the second amendment will be nullified when the government reaches the point of becoming totalitarian. I simply can't see the government saying "well we wanted to subjugate them and snuff their rebellion but those damn 2nd amendment rights are too strong."
hahaha :) Well that might be the next war for independence, as the political cycle seems to go. Hope I'm not around then :eek: but I know who I would side with.
 

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
3,627
i.e. by taking it from someone and giving it to someone else.... :rolleyes:
Yep that is literally what taxation is. Ok good luck maintaining a country to support a capitalist market economy without taxation.

Taxation has got nothing to do with Socialism. It is a common feature of all economic models.

The working and lower class enable and provide a market for the capitalist winners. Increasing their welfare is the best way to grow markets. Or are you proposing that the taxation of capitalist winners should be redistributed right back to themselves? Cause that just sounds like exploitation.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
7,098
Yep that is literally what taxation is. Ok good luck maintaining a country to support a capitalist market economy without taxation.

Taxation has got nothing to do with Socialism. It is a common feature of all economic models.

The working and lower class enable and provide a market for the capitalist winners. Increasing their welfare is the best way to grow markets. Or are you proposing that the taxation of capitalist winners should be redistributed right back to themselves? Cause that just sounds like exploitation.
No one is against taxation except for a fringe few.

I think the system is doing ok as is. Capitalism has been the only system that has increased wealth on a global scale. Issue is when is enough, enough?
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
2,651
I'm not saying they stand no chance even with 2a in place. I'm saying the second amendment will be nullified when the government reaches the point of becoming totalitarian. I simply can't see the government saying "well we wanted to subjugate them and snuff their rebellion but those damn 2nd amendment rights are too strong."
You're overlooking the role the second amendment plays in preventing the government from becoming totalitarian in the first place. The second amendment gives people the right to own guns, and the existence of the guns is what's going to make the totalitarians say "well, we want to put them all in a meat grinder, but they're kinda armed to the teeth."
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
2,651
Yep that is literally what taxation is. Ok good luck maintaining a country to support a capitalist market economy without taxation.

Taxation has got nothing to do with Socialism. It is a common feature of all economic models.
So in fact Bill Gates and company are wrong when they try to redefine socialism to mean progressive taxation?

The working and lower class enable and provide a market for the capitalist winners. Increasing their welfare is the best way to grow markets. Or are you proposing that the taxation of capitalist winners should be redistributed right back to themselves? Cause that just sounds like exploitation.
We like to pretend money grows on trees, but in reality you cannot print an economy.
 

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
3,627
No one is against taxation except for a fringe few.

I think the system is doing ok as is. Capitalism has been the only system that has increased wealth on a global scale. Issue is when is enough, enough?
I agree, the capitalist market is doing just fine. Let's leave it.

However the spending of tax revenue by government is where the debate is at. Modern socialism suggests that you should spend that more on those were are not successful in the capitalist market in order to
  • maximize their participation in it (i.e. reduce barriers to entry and re-entry)
  • prevent social ills from participation failure (i.e. being destitute due to setbacks)
  • create a captive market that is capable of consuming the goods produced in a capitalist market so that it is self sustaining
  • prevent social upheaval, rebellion and unrest
My view is that the super wealthy have a direct self interest in improving the welfare of the general population for these reasons.
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
2,651
Good lawda I'm speaking about existing tax revenues, are you thick?
Yeah I must be thick.
This completely, however the right wingers will choose to hear what they want and argue a straw man.

Modern socialism only seeks to take care of those left behind by an efficient capitalist market economy by prioritising them in spending of tax revenue. Nothing more.

/Now queue Venezuela responses
Taxation has everything to do with socialism as a concept if what I've bolded is an accurate statement.

Now I'm not really sure why you would want to bring up existing tax revenues, because it is readily apparent that existing tax revenues are inadequate worldwide given the fact that the government debt to gdp ratio of most countries worldwide is increasing at an unsustainable pace.

And that's where Venezuela (and Zimbabwe et al) enters the picture, because hyperinflation is what happens when a government cannot repay its debts, and this is generally what happens when spending outstrips revenue. Surely you do not mean to solve this problem merely by directing moral outrage at it...
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
35,357
No one is against taxation except for a fringe few.

I think the system is doing ok as is. Capitalism has been the only system that has increased wealth on a global scale. Issue is when is enough, enough?
Well, no the issue is how you define socialism in relation to our historical understanding and the way it's being presented by Bernie Sanders; i.e. is he talking about government-owned means of production?
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,000
The morality is that a logically inconsistent clause by the founding fathers, which only really has relevance to that period of time, has been extrapolated as the basis for broad unrestricted gun ownership, which led to the US having the highest gun homicide rate in the world by a mile.
FEELINGS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FACTS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_guns_and_homicide

Here is the funny thing, that statistic doesn't even work in the US between states. They are pretty uncorrelated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

I'm not saying they stand no chance even with 2a in place. I'm saying the second amendment will be nullified when the government reaches the point of becoming totalitarian. I simply can't see the government saying "well we wanted to subjugate them and snuff their rebellion but those damn 2nd amendment rights are too strong."
That means the government would have to systematically go around and remove the weapons from everyone's house. (Gee I can't think why the NRA doesn't want such lists to exist). Which would be impossible.
 
Top