The Political Discussion Thread

[Ukko]

so the substantially less well-trained and substantially less well-armed colonists, less well armed because the colonists had very little, if any, heavy artillery at their disposal, who were able to defeat a better-trained and better-armed force were extremely paranoid with delusions of grandeur...

you think we'd lose if we had to take on a tyrannical government again...but if 1776 shows us anything it's that just because one army is better trained and better armed than the other doesn't necessarily guarantee success....we're quite adept at overcoming a great many odds

Your favourite phrase "apples and oranges" fits in nicely hear. Not even mentioning the seemingly romantic and cherry picked view you seem to have on this subject.

[Womble]

They do not. :|

The three reasons why Calico never found a military or law enforcement buyer:

1) Their fancy 50-round helical mags are unreliable as hell, not least because you need to actually wind up the magazine spring, and God forbid you over-wind it.

2) Magazine-mounted sight is a terrible idea.

3)They look like something designed by Rube Goldberg.

[Womble]

Israel does

I've met one Israeli guy who carried a Desert Eagle. He was an animal control officer.

[Naonak]

so the substantially less well-trained and substantially less well-armed colonists ... who were able to defeat a better-trained and better-armed force were extremely paranoid with delusions of grandeur...

Not really sure how you've managed to interpret what Digi said in this way.

[mad_gater]

Not really sure how you've managed to interpret what Digi said in this way.

his tone implies that we're crazy if we think that if we arm ourselves with guns that it would be an assurance against an authoritarian government

[Gatefan1976]

I wasn't actually saying you specifically, more of a general "you"

I gotta say dude, I can find no reason for carrying concealed firearms really, but I'm not in the US, so perhaps there is something to it an outsider simply cannot see. It's in your constitution, so there you have it AFAIC.

most of the time though the pistol permit or concealed carry permit from the state is given through the providers of firearms training and safety classes...so if you don't demonstrate proficiency in accordance with the standards of the providers of those classes the providers of those classes aren't gonna grant the license

Nope, via the Police bud. I'm sure such providers DO have some impact in that decision, but at the end it is up to the police.

not being an expert on NYS Law I can't testify as to the exact wording of the conditions under which one must be eligible to receive a concealed carry license (I imagine there's the usual ones like having to be at least 18 years old and stuff like that)....but if the language of the law is deficient in not explicitly requiring one to demonstrate proficiency then I would agree that that needs to be rectified (esp. seeing as how drivers need to pass a driving test before they can get the license it would make sense that prospective gun owners would need to pass an exam designed to test his proficiency with the weapon in question)

Yup, I agree with you bud, but that simply does not seem to be the case unfortunately. What we have out here is a system where you have to do 8 (?) shoots every year in a registered firearms range to maintain a target shooters licence and get it signed off by the range master, in that way you have contact a few times a year with professionals who can make sure you maintain at least safety standards and a maintained firearm.

[Gatefan1976]

I've met one Israeli guy who carried a Desert Eagle. He was an animal control officer.

yup, SR caught me up on that and after a little further research it seems NO military uses them, which means that they are a .50 cal pistol -made for non military use.

[Gatefan1976]

All this wrongness is making the internet sad. So, here is a mole.

Spoiler:

Trust Ukko to send in a spy...........

[Naonak]

his tone implies that we're crazy if we think that if we arm ourselves with guns that it would be an assurance against an authoritarian government

What do you think "paranoid" was referring to?



This is going to rapidly tumble down the rabbit hole.

[aretood2]

I talked to a friend once who was more like MG when it comes to gun rights. My conversation was one in which I wanted to know exactly why this is such a big deal. Aside from constitutional issues, I asked him what was the core issue underlying the need or desire to be able to own certain weapons. From what he said, it seems to be more cultural in nature. It helps for an identity as a free citizen, making it symbolic in that the government cannot prevent one from being capable of self defense and that the government does not fear that a citizen is armed.

Whether or not that justifies the need or desire to own certain weapons or carry said weapons is beyond the point that I am trying to make here. I just feel like adding in the answer to a question that MG hasn't seen, one the Gatefan seems to be asking. This was my friend's answer, and I suspect that it is something similar as to what MG believes or feels. I'll allow others to debate the pro's and con's of facilitating this aspect of a cultural identity. I just find it quite interesting that it really has more to do with identity than "getting ready for the government attack."

Another interesting topic that this brings up is the issue of cultural identity and exactly how that is developed and justified by members of said culture and to what extent should a multicultural society tolerate certain behaviors associated with cultural identity.

[Gatefan1976]

I talked to a friend once who was more like MG when it comes to gun rights. My conversation was one in which I wanted to know exactly why this is such a big deal. Aside from constitutional issues, I asked him what was the core issue underlying the need or desire to be able to own certain weapons. From what he said, it seems to be more cultural in nature. It helps for an identity as a free citizen, making it symbolic in that the government cannot prevent one from being capable of self defense and that the government does not fear that a citizen is armed.

So, what you are saying is that it's a "cultural identity issue" to own military grade weaponry?
I have no issues with private US citizens owning guns, it is thier constitutianal right to do so. I grew up in a house with guns, and I think it gave me a healthy respect for the power of firearms, but also an understanding of why they should be monitored and controlled.

Whether or not that justifies the need or desire to own certain weapons or carry said weapons is beyond the point that I am trying to make here. I just feel like adding in the answer to a question that MG hasn't seen, one the Gatefan seems to be asking. This was my friend's answer, and I suspect that it is something similar as to what MG believes or feels. I'll allow others to debate the pro's and con's of facilitating this aspect of a cultural identity. I just find it quite interesting that it really has more to do with identity than "getting ready for the government attack."

What is the answer? This notion of "cultural identity"?

Another interesting topic that this brings up is the issue of cultural identity and exactly how that is developed and justified by members of said culture and to what extent should a multicultural society tolerate certain behaviors associated with cultural identity.

An ummmm, "honest" response would be to allow all cultures to interact so long as a "cultural concern" is not made *LAW*. Law should maintain a seperation from both belief and culture to an extent, it should be an impartial entity that is applicable to all no matter what.

[aretood2]

So, what you are saying is that it's a "cultural identity issue" to own military grade weaponry?
I have no issues with private US citizens owning guns, it is thier constitutianal right to do so. I grew up in a house with guns, and I think it gave me a healthy respect for the power of firearms, but also an understanding of why they should be monitored and controlled.

It's not my culture.

What is the answer? This notion of "cultural identity"?

What do you mean?

An ummmm, "honest" response would be to allow all cultures to interact so long as a "cultural concern" is not made *LAW*. Law should maintain a seperation from both belief and culture to an extent, it should be an impartial entity that is applicable to all no matter what.

I have yet to see this done perfectly.

[Gatefan1976]

It's not my culture.

Nor mine.

What do you mean?

You said you were trying to answer my question, how did you?
The closest you came to answering was this "cultural identiny" sideline, so I figured that was your answer, if not, I will restate, what is the answer you gave?

I have yet to see this done perfectly.

True, thats why there was a "should" at the beginning of the statement.

[The Flyattractor]

....I am so glad I don't frequent these kinds of threads.

[mad_gater]

not to mention that a simple government ban on guns wouldn't do a thing....say the government could ban access by anybody and everybody (save themselves of course) to firearms.....people can and have made their own guns.....zip guns anyone? they can be made from readily available materials and can even be disguised to look like something as innocuous as a flashlight