Is there anything you'd be willing to fight a war for?

[JasonBlack]

I have yet to see any real pro-war types in this forum, and that includes myself, but I thought I would posit this question as a thought experiment.

[JasonBlack]

ex: I'm slow toward violence, but there are definitely a few topics which would make me take up arms
1) An actual communist coup
2) Repealing of the 2nd Amendment
3) mass immigration from a culture that unironically practiced child sacrifice
4) Takeover by any non-democratic power (Muslim Theocracy, fascist, absolutist, non-constitutional monarchy, etc)
5) A law making it illegal to eat meat

To be clear, I do not care about honor, bravery, heroism or anything of the sort. Neither do I consider myself to be particularly courageous, strong or skilled in combat. If anything, I am a rather boring person and want nothing more than to settle down with a comfortable income and raise a family; however...under any of these circumstances, my life would be devoted to killing as many of them as I could get my hands on who refused to surrender.

[Tim Randal Walker]

It would have to be a defensive war, a response to the aggression of another nation. Even then, the particular aggression would have to be a threat toward the few parts of the globe that I care about-no more of the USA being the policeman of the world.

[Eric the Green]

(10-15-2022, 10:29 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: ex: I'm slow toward violence, but there are definitely a few topics which would make me take up arms
1) An actual communist coup
2) Repealing of the 2nd Amendment
3) mass immigration from a culture that unironically practiced child sacrifice
4) Takeover by any non-democratic power (Muslim Theocracy, fascist, absolutist, non-constitutional monarchy, etc)
5) A law making it illegal to eat meat

To be clear, I do not care about honor, bravery, heroism or anything of the sort. Neither do I consider myself to be particularly courageous, strong or skilled in combat. If anything, I am a rather boring person and want nothing more than to settle down with a comfortable income and raise a family; however...under any of these circumstances, my life would be devoted to killing as many of them as I could get my hands on who refused to surrender.

Put down your arms. We don't need the 2nd Amendment.

We only need arms if we are going to fight a civil war.

And in this case, armed citizens are not enough to win, so why try? You just get beat, and your arms confiscated.

If you want to fight a civil war, it will be necessary to organize a state of your own, like the Confederacy, organize armies with genuine strategy, and probably get foreign help or find a source to buy weapons from. 

But this is where I might agree with you.

4) Takeover by any non-democratic power (Muslim Theocracy, fascist, absolutist, non-constitutional monarchy, etc)

The Republicans are doing this right now, and if they win midterm elections in 2022 for governor and secretary of state in swing states, as may even be likely, they will insert a Republican in office as president in Nov.2024 that the people or even the people in those states did not vote for.

So then, the democratic Left will need to do more than their customary outburst of demonstrations and riots. They would need to organize an alternative state, organize an army, get weapons, and fight. If I am fit enough, I might even join up and fight the Classic Xers. This may take the form of secession too. Anything less than this will be put down by the Republican police state. The odds of victory are long in any case.

[pbrower2a]

1. A totalitarian cause intent upon imposing its totalitarian style and practice upon America.
2. Genocide or slavery.
3. Dismantling of the Bill of Rights or the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.  (The Second Amendment needs at the least to be rewritten to include a non-discrimination clause and to allow states to prohibit the importation  or manufacture of weapons within their states contrary to the laws of those states).  
4. A scenario out of  V,  Independence Day, or The War of the Worlds.

[JasonBlack]

(10-17-2022, 03:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Put down your arms. We don't need the 2nd Amendment.
We only need arms if we are going to fight a civil war.

With all due respect sir...over my dead body.

Quote:But this is where I might agree with you.

Glad to hear it. And if it comes to that....I want the public to have their guns.

[pbrower2a]

Not eating meat? We will likely be able to create synthetic meat that, even if it tastes like something that used to be alive and kicking or swimming never was. Heck, we could synthesize something like mouse-meat to please the kitties. It may be macabre, but I can imagine someone concocting a simulation of a certain flesh as a special treat for animals too small to kill and eat us or too well behaved to do so.

[Eric the Green]

(10-17-2022, 10:07 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-17-2022, 03:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Put down your arms. We don't need the 2nd Amendment.
We only need arms if we are going to fight a civil war.

With all due respect sir...over my dead body.

With all due respect, I think you need therapy for your ammosexuality.

Why are you so attached to having guns?

By the way repeal the 2nd amendment would not necessarily mean no-one could get a gun anymore.

Quote:

Quote:But this is where I might agree with you.

Glad to hear it. And if it comes to that....I want the public to have their guns.

I would only agree if it applies to those members of the public who want to join the well-regulated militia, meaning those who join the army of a new rebel American state determined to restore democracy, if it comes to that, as it is currently under severe threat. In that case, the army would own the guns as is the case now in the US army. But perhaps those who now have guns could bring them to the army for the fight, in case they are needed.

As it stands now though, it is those who threaten democracy who have the most guns and are determined to keep them. So there's a mismatch there. The ones who have the guns are mostly (though perhaps not entirely) the groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who want to take our democracy away by force of arms.

Are you in a militia now? Why do you have guns?

[David Horn]

(10-17-2022, 10:07 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-17-2022, 03:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Put down your arms. We don't need the 2nd Amendment.
We only need arms if we are going to fight a civil war.

With all due respect sir...over my dead body.

Be careful; what you wish for.  Your side was all-in on guns in the '60s, then the Black Panthers descided to join the gun-crew.  <cue great weaping and fear of the black devil ... and wide-spread gun control, btw>.

Eric Wrote:

Jason Wrote:But this is where I might agree with you.

Glad to hear it. And if it comes to that....I want the public to have their guns.

There is no "the public".  There is only a diverse aggregation of the fearful, angry and irate.  Assume the worst.

[JasonBlack]

(10-18-2022, 04:57 AM)David Horn Wrote: Be careful; what you wish for.  Your side was all-in on guns in the '60s, then the Black Panthers descided to join the gun-crew.  <cue great weaping and fear of the black devil ... and wide-spread gun control, btw>

Except racists have never been on my "side". If more black people had guns, we'd hear of a lot less instance of police brutality.

Quote:There is no "the public".  There is only a diverse aggregation of the fearful, angry and irate.  Assume the worst.

I shall

[Eric the Green]

(10-18-2022, 04:04 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-18-2022, 04:57 AM)David Horn Wrote: Be careful; what you wish for.  Your side was all-in on guns in the '60s, then the Black Panthers descided to join the gun-crew.  <cue great weaping and fear of the black devil ... and wide-spread gun control, btw>

Except racists have never been on my "side". If more black people had guns, we'd hear of a lot less instance of police brutality.

The Black Panthers opted for this exact solution, and paid for it with their lives and the defeat of their movement. It is not practical. But they and all of us on the Left or moderate Left may be forced into it if the rightwing gun nuts take power and impose their cult on us. But I would "assume the worst" outcome in that case too.

The people must vote them down and out of office to avoid this outcome. That means in 3 weeks from the time of this post. Vote against Keri Lake, for example. And all Secretary of State election denier candidates. For best results vote against any Republican; they are all easily intimidated by Trump's cult these days. Only one current Republican congressman, who faces a tough race in CA, had the courage to oppose Trump. A Republican House will put Boebert, Greene and other election deniers and vote suppressors in charge of the congress.

[JasonBlack]

(10-18-2022, 06:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Black Panthers opted for this exact solution, and paid for it with their lives and the defeat of their movement. It is not practical. But they and all of us on the Left or moderate Left may be forced into it if the rightwing gun nuts take power and impose their cult on us. But I would "assume the worst" outcome in that case too.

The people must vote them down and out of office to avoid this outcome. That means in 3 weeks from the time of this post. Vote against Keri Lake, for example. And all Secretary of State election denier candidates. For best results vote against any Republican; they are all easily intimidated by Trump's cult these days. Only one current Republican congressman, who faces a tough race in CA, had the courage to oppose Trump. A Republican House will put Boebert, Greene and other election deniers and vote suppressors in charge of the congress.

Violent crime has been dropping rapidly since the 80s (minus a recent uptick because the Covid19 era has been utter madness), and yet people consider this some "defeat" for guns.

[David Horn]

(10-18-2022, 06:59 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-18-2022, 06:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Black Panthers opted for this exact solution, and paid for it with their lives and the defeat of their movement. It is not practical. But they and all of us on the Left or moderate Left may be forced into it if the rightwing gun nuts take power and impose their cult on us. But I would "assume the worst" outcome in that case too.

The people must vote them down and out of office to avoid this outcome. That means in 3 weeks from the time of this post. Vote against Keri Lake, for example. And all Secretary of State election denier candidates. For best results vote against any Republican; they are all easily intimidated by Trump's cult these days. Only one current Republican congressman, who faces a tough race in CA, had the courage to oppose Trump. A Republican House will put Boebert, Greene and other election deniers and vote suppressors in charge of the congress.

Violent crime has been dropping rapidly since the 80s (minus a recent uptick because the Covid19 era has been utter madness), and yet people consider this some "defeat" for guns.

There is no evidence that a "good guy with a gun" is a factor in preventing, deterring or stopping crime.  In fact, quite the opposite.  The decline in criminal activity has a lot more to do with the Xers aging out of the violent demographic, and improvements in work opportunities not COVID, and an effect now in active reversal.  Watch for more crime, regardless of what is done.

And let's not forget that the era of mass shooting started and has grown in direct proportion to the number of guns in circulation.  We will have to remove a huge number of them at some point, and it won't be pretty when we do.

[pbrower2a]

As a defender I would rather trust a dog (it rouses easily and has keen senses in darkness) than myself with a firearm. Dogs are unlikely to attack the wrong person, and a burglar has no chance of turning a dog against its owner.

The solution to a burglar once in your house is to get out of the house. Outside? A barking dog is a powerful deterrent because it is itself a fearsome predator. Even small dogs have mauled burglars badly, and there isn't much worth taking that is worth dog bites and scratches.

Another fact: a huge portion of suicides are by firearm, usually in depression. Dogs are good at cheering people up. They will compel people to do things that give meaning to life -- like taking the dog out for a walk. The dog wants you to survive- a firearm has no conscience, feelings, or enlightened self-interest as do most dogs.

[pbrower2a]

For many good reasons I would prefer a dog as a defense. Even scarier than a burglar is fire, and a dog is likely to smell smoke than you are. Smoke is the big killer in fires -- more so than flames. People have been known to stop everything and get medical help if the dog detects an impending stroke or heart attack.

A firearm in the wrong hands is dangerous, and crooks are known to turn users' guns against the guns' owners. Dogs cannot be so turned.

Dogs deter crime. Except for good behavior, a medium-to-large dog might as well be a bear or Big Cat. Multiple small dogs have much the same effect. If the analogy seems absurd, then consider that in a televised circus, the dog act and the tiger act were basically the same. You do not want a dog as an enemy; burglars, muggers, and rapists are meat.

Firearms are excellent tools for suicide. Dogs can get people out of extreme depression. Dogs are smart enough to figure us out (they think like the predators that they are) and recognize when we are in trouble. Dogs seem to have characteristics that many of us like in ourselves, including conscience. Is that unlikely in an animal built to kill? Dogs are above us in the food chain. Considering that some dogs are similar in size to bears and Big Cats, and bears and Biug Cats are completely untrustworthy, maybe there is something to canine conscience.

[JasonBlack]

(10-19-2022, 12:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: There is no evidence that a "good guy with a gun" is a factor in preventing, deterring or stopping crime.  In fact, quite the opposite.  The decline in criminal activity has a lot more to do with the Xers aging out of the violent demographic, and improvements in work opportunities not COVID, and an effect now in active reversal.  Watch for more crime, regardless of what is done.

And let's not forget that the era of mass shooting started and has grown in direct proportion to the number of guns in circulation.  We will have to remove a huge number of them at some point, and it won't be pretty when we do.

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence. I'm a big fan of Dr. Thomas Sowell's work on this topic. A level headed voice in a sea of zealotry around a contentious topic.

[David Horn]

(10-20-2022, 01:17 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-19-2022, 12:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: There is no evidence that a "good guy with a gun" is a factor in preventing, deterring or stopping crime.  In fact, quite the opposite.  The decline in criminal activity has a lot more to do with the Xers aging out of the violent demographic, and improvements in work opportunities not COVID, and an effect now in active reversal.  Watch for more crime, regardless of what is done.

And let's not forget that the era of mass shooting started and has grown in direct proportion to the number of guns in circulation.  We will have to remove a huge number of them at some point, and it won't be pretty when we do.

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence. I'm a big fan of Dr. Thomas Sowell's work on this topic. A level headed voice in a sea of zealotry around a contentious topic.

You do realize that the gun lobby, especially the faction that represents the gun industry itself, successfully lobbied to keep the collection and retention of data on gun-related adccidents, suicides and homocides illegal in most places and aggregated data illegal at the national level. That's why the CDC -- by law -- can't study the subject. So your counter argument rings massively hollow. Just as a single point: gun-related crimes in New Zealand and Switzerland are low because ownership requires a license and each weapon is registered. Resales are formal and documented, just like the transfer of a automobile. The unfit are weeded out and the others are fully tracked. You OK with that?

[Eric the Green]

(10-20-2022, 01:17 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-19-2022, 12:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: There is no evidence that a "good guy with a gun" is a factor in preventing, deterring or stopping crime.  In fact, quite the opposite.  The decline in criminal activity has a lot more to do with the Xers aging out of the violent demographic, and improvements in work opportunities not COVID, and an effect now in active reversal.  Watch for more crime, regardless of what is done.

And let's not forget that the era of mass shooting started and has grown in direct proportion to the number of guns in circulation.  We will have to remove a huge number of them at some point, and it won't be pretty when we do.

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence. I'm a big fan of Dr. Thomas Sowell's work on this topic. A level headed voice in a sea of zealotry around a contentious topic.

I am very much NOT a fan of Thomas Sowell.

[Eric the Green]

Want a gun to protect you from criminals, Jason? Or from violent police?

A gun is unsafe unless not loaded and locked away. Whereupon it is useless if a criminal or a violent cop invades your property.

A shootout with a criminal or cop with you using an unsafe and ready to use gun is unlikely to work in your favor.

For a criminal invading your property without a gun, shooting him might make you guilty of a crime and you might be convicted. And better means of defense include mace, stun gun, alarms, locks, dogs, martial arts, fences, moving to a safer neighborhood, etc.

It is better to rely on 9-11 and the police than on easily-available guns. The more people rely on guns, the more guns are available to criminals. They can borrow or steal them or buy them anywhere in the USA. The more our society becomes a violent anarchy where no-one is safe. The more violent the police become too. Red states are verging on such conditions already.

Guns are possibly useful if you are fighting a civil war. In that case, the gun owner would in my opinion need to turn over their gun to the army of the the state, alternative state or state-in-exile, depending which you support. If ready, you could join the army.

The 2nd Amendment protects your right to bear arms only if you are part of a well-regulated militia in which its members must bring their own weapons, as was the case 230 years ago. It is not the case today; we have well-regulated militias that issue guns to its members. They are called the police and the national guard.

The 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms only since the current Republican Supreme Court so wrongly decided. We should elect Democrats who will appoint Justices who will restore the proper interpretation.

The nation and states could still pass measures permitting gun ownership even if the 2nd Amendment is repealed or if Justices interpret it correctly again. The 2nd Amendment does not say that no-one can own firearms if this Amendment did not exist. But states and the nation could enact such gun control measures it deemed necessary if the Amendment were repealed. And such measures are desperately needed. The 2nd Amendment by the same token does not prohibit all gun control, according to the Supreme Court.

[pbrower2a]

Valid pretext for owning a gun:

1. Bears nearby.
2. Cougars or jaguars nearby.
3. You are in the sheep business. Dogs are as lethal as wolves to sheep, and the law is on the side of sheep-raising interests against wayward dogs.
4. You hunt for sport (but I would suggest that the police let you store your deer rifle at the station).
5. Neighbors keep dangerous animals.
6. Neighbors are drug traffickers.
Otherwise... you are better off with a dog.

Only a fool would confront a burglar. The best advise for dealing with a burglar is to get out. Treat a burglary like a fire: just get out of the house. And, yes, get your beloved dog out. Got a gun? Get it out of the house, too.

If you have a charged cellphone you have a silent alarm to the police. You can text to the police, and nobody will hear that.

Using as an example with an unlikely address:

"Burglary at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Intruder in the Lincoln bedroom".