The debate "Government can't be trusted thus guns are necessary" was started by
April 10, 2015, 2:58 am.
36 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 49 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Getmurked posted 3 arguments, I_Voyager posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
ABDO, Bodaciouslady16, Superr1fifty, tr, Getmurked, I_Voyager, gowtham_lcs0, anonimderp, Shreedeep, Gabrielle, rcheyanne99, judge, jonatron5, toughgamerjerry and 22 visitors agree.
ufufugh, shinywhale, PsychDave, Mastermind, teebee7, Sosocratese, Tuv46, transfanboy, mancandyandy, hardikrawat, Shuttey, murch, marti, JMP9940, sugoi_shan, invincible_01, skyfrancois_97, cadzp9, soullesschicken, sdiop, historybuff, Turtle and 27 visitors disagree.
But if I live in my mortgaged house; and my every owned device or software is licensed to me under more and more arcane rules, where my every action in my own home is shaped by the will of the power that saw fit to transact with me; and this system of bastardized kingship is enthroned by the laws; and my behaviors are observed and, when failed to be legally aligned, are punishable by law, laws which are purchased by corporations in a conversation between politicians and lobbyists which I cannot afford to influence, in a politics whose candidates are only given a chance by the rich to communicate, in parties which only exist by the virtue of large donations, and only to serve those interests there-in... I will not see how the terms "free society" are relevant.
If in my peaceful resistance they see fit to destroy me, however it is shaped, and certainly however successful it will be in changing the status-quo, I will not fall silently.
I generally agree with everything you say. So long as we live in a free world, it is our responsibility to be peaceful and constructive. At this moment, I don't know whether or not I live in that world. I lean towards believing we live in that world which is partly stepping into another.
So long as the law is fair and expansive about how a person can act in an economy on both a small and large scale, there is no cause for armed resistance. But I see a slow shift from freedom to economic control by the rich and powerful in Canada, America and Europe.
If I am wrong, then these peaceful protest movements will simply win. If 3D printing improves, we become more innovative with resource production, and in their choice to exit the traditional market and enter one where intellectual trade and design is free, energy is produced by renewables and we have legal freedom over our genes and genetic expression, I'll be fine with being peaceful.
If, however, similar moves like those made in the past to criminalize marijuana to preserve the lumber industry, or by corporations or certain churches (scientology for example) laws become manipulated to make sure the rich benefit greatly from automation while the majority of people lose employability, I will see cause to ponder effective resistance.
Consider Hollywood's success in opposing the "piracy" - which is only really the sharing of digital property between people over a novel network. This is the belief that the old industry is good and necessary, enforced by law. Many good people have been jailed as a result.
As 3D printing and 3D scanning improve, more types of "stuff" will be viably traded digitally between people online. If the governments do as they have done and side with the major corporations or the economic/legal mysticism that enshrines them, more and more of what free people do will be criminal.
If behaving freely is a crime, not in how we treat eachother, but in what we exchange, when and how, when we have not taken a property from someone by force, but have it in virtue of having been given it by a party that owns it, whose own possession has never been from a theft, but from at some point an honest exchange between peers - including the purchase of a thing - then we can say we are free.
I know that, but all of those things have constructive uses. The only use for guns is to kill things, or to practice how to kill things. If you are going to resist the government, I consider it far better to do it in such a way that, whenever possible, society benefits from your actions. Open source software, 3d printing and programming are primarily peaceful. You can use a 3d printer to make weapons (of a sort) and you can arm drones, but killing is not their primary function. If you are protesting capitalism by releasing free, open source software, while you may anger the corporations losing profits, you are giving something to society. If you publish plans for how to print your own items instead of buying them at huge markups, again you are resisting capitalism, but you are doing so by giving something to society. If you resist capitalism by taking to the streets with guns, or shooting corporate executives, bankers, or whomever you feel you should hold accountable, you are not giving anything to society, you are just destroying. By giving something to the community, you gain its support. By taking violent action, you alienate people who may share your outlook, but be more moderate.
Hacking and open source both pertain to hardware though. Open source computers, drones and 3d printers are all part of that movement.
I think hacktivism is likely the wave of the future since a small number of people could effectively impact a large number of sectors. Look at groups like Anonymous. Whole I do not always agree with their targets or tactics, they are effective at showing resistance and making their message heard. As more and more of life moves into the digital realm, coding will become a more effective tool for resisting oppression than guns.
I think PsychDave's points are valid, and your counter argument is valid. But mr.murked, the next step is to propose how it is possible today. Napoleon wasn't able to resist the great powers of his day by accident. He created a new method of warfare which was appropriate to his time. When everyone thought they had mastered warfare, he found the hole in their method and proved them wrong. More often, that doesn't happen and people trust in their belief that just wanting to succeed is good enough.
Psychdave's criticism is right. Technology is a huge barrier to effective resistance. But I agree that doesn't mean we can't resist. It means a method of resistance must be appropriately detailed.
I actually do believe resistance is necessary. I'd rather not. And I don't think killing soldiers or politicians is the answer, nor do I believe violence makes heroes.
But I think our belief that we have freedom is an illusion. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but I do believe there is a general consensus about how to achieve and maintain power which closely resembles philosophies written about in 1984, A Brave New World and The Matrix. Cutting aside the superfluous flights of fantasy in each, and those political methods which definitely failed (mass-censorship, rigid application of violence, subliminal messaging, digital fantasy worlds, etc...) we can see how the distortion of the use of language creates a control over action, how opening a hole to a method of resistance creates meaningless resistance, how the presence of really easily consumably additive media, substances and sexual freedom creates laxity.
This has created a state where most people are active for reasons unimportant, most reasonable ideas a quashed for passion, and most people in the west live very happily off the slavery of others in other parts of the world. And we all forget our history... The many genocides the west has helped cause, the assassinations, the unfair economic trade agreements. We're told our society is moral because we treat ourselves justly, and just ignore the international calamity the west has generally been.
But to think this is leading somewhere better is folly. We are decaying. The only real shining beacon are the physical sciences, and the way that teaches us that there IS an objective reality that can be pursued. But the enslavement of science to business or government has generally been terrifying.
We will have to resist soon.
are those not the words that everyone says when starting a revolt?
" it cannot be done, they are too advanced"
honestly, for a scenario such as this to work, i feel it would have to be brought down to an individual circumstance, with all the specifics involved, but i feel that you cannot simply say it is not possible, as it has happened numerous times in history. i cannot say they coule win for sure, because i would neee a specific scenario, but i know that it is definetly possible. as for the armor, i agree, however, revolutionists tend to get thier hands on that stuffx whether it be backing from other nations or a suprise raid
But that depends on having the majority of the population not only supporting you, but willing to fight for you. Without that, it is a few people with weapons, who don't stand a chance. If the police and military side with those who are overthrowing the government, your weapons are not going to be the deciding factor. I can't think of any scenario that is realistic that would generate the kind of support for violent uprising that would be needed. There are too many checks and balances preventing the kinds of corruption and tyranny that create that kind of response.
Numbers make a difference, but tanks, planes and helicopters are substantial force multipliers. You could outnumber the military 100 to 1 but without armor and air support, you are still just guerilla fighters without training since you cannot storm machine guns and hope to succeed.
and alliances are always a key factor. just like in the american revolution
not saying the government is opressing and abusing us, but i find you wrong on that we would be shot down quickly in the event of a revolution. if most citizens were together, we outnumber the govt. yes they are more trained, but there are still a number of people who can shoot, and whos to say some police and national guard and the like wouldnt join? we would be outskillee, maybe outgunned, but we would have numbers, and devotion, a major key factor.
Guns are only useful for opposing the government if you have plans to use them, and that would hurt a lot of innocent people. If the government is killing people, ruling through military might, and oppressing people, armed revolution may be necessary. If you live in a Western country, there are checks and balances in place to protect against that, and the military and law enforcement is too well trained and equipped to be brought down by civilians with guns. There is no need in a developed nation for armed rebellion, and therefore guns are not needed for one.
I don't think guns should be banned, but if you horde guns with the intent of killing police and politicians because you disagree with them, that doesn't make you a hero.