Re: I'll live with the TSA, I just don't understand mass-murder
[QUOTE=feather;1073039]That's something I don't get. The right to bear arms in fear of a tyrannical government.
Let's say the worst happens and citizens feel the need to overthrow the government. I get the impression in this modern society whatever overthrowing will happen politically and on paper, rather than actual fighting. When's the last time a revolution happened in America?
And if there is a pocket of citizen uprising, doesn't the government (and its military) have more than enough force to make the effort of said citizens bearing arms laughable?
Seems like this tyrannical government thing is more of an excuse for people to hold on to their toys.[/QUOTE]
It's a bit of a strawman's argument on the part of the pro-gun lobby - it's always "just in case" and a demand of constant vigilance. It's like saying that I should always wear a parka, even if I live in a tropical climate, in case the ice age comes - at least I will be prepared and not left vulnerable. Some factions take this a lot further and feel that it's their responsibility to be prepared and to form things like private militias, while others seem to fantasize about being the one man Rambo/Chuck Norris that will personally save the U.S. from Tyranny. Then you have the faction that feel that the Tyranny has already arrived and is present with the current government and they have to take advantage of this freedom before (in their eyes) that their government closes the door on their opportunity to "take the country back". It's fucked, to put it mildly.
[quote]
And as you pointed out, there're enough lobbyists and lobbying going on (that I can't claim any familiarity with) to make the point of bearing arms to overthrow anything, pointless. There're enough deals and handshakes going on behind the scenes—what are the chances that these people who do bear arms, will actually do something with their arms?[/quote]
See this is the thing - lobbying originally was supposed to be more of an advisory role - consultation for expertise on matters that the government had no knowledge on when it came to an industry that required specific expertise. Somewhere along the way things got perverted into being a business more about companies and industries peddling influence and advancing their own interests instead of consultation and trying to help the government understand the impact a decision would have to the general public. I feel that originally the intentions were good when lobbying stated, but there wasn't any regulation in the practices, which has resulted into (what I see it as being) something that approaches bribery, but is a couple of steps away from being blatant.
[quote]When do the unarmed citizens say, enough is enough? When does the president say, enough is enough? What's the point of being president and letting this happen?[/quote]
Dude, the gun control lobby can't hold a candle to the revenues generated by the NRA - the NRA has backing of every gun manufacturer, regular citizens as well as even members of the government themselves (which in the latter case strikes me as a huge conflict of interest, but also causes a problem with personal freedoms of the individual). The gun control lobby doesn't have anywhere near the resources - they're a lobby that is trying to protect their own back yard, don't have much in the way of industry backing them and are outfunded by international companies as well as companies that originate out of the U.S. Also, they're advocating under the pretense of personal responsibility which is a considerably less sexy sell compared to the freedom and sense of excess available when it comes to the gun lobby.
Part of the problem, the way I see it, is there isn't a separation of these interests - the lines are so blurred that it's nearly impossible right now to ensure that specific free market interests don't creep into the political decisions that are being made for the country, putting the interests of the citizens second in the name of business interest of whatever industry is involved. But how you separate and ensure that is another story entirely, and not an easy answer to formulate.
[quote]
At the political level there might well be many considerations and complications that I'm not familiar with, but the real world effect is quite straight forward: 20 kids were alive and laughing and playing, now they're not. The shades of grey are reduced to black and white, dead or alive.
The government, the lobbying and what not, the for and anti-arms camps and their 'talks', collectively allowed this to happen.
Coming from a place like Singapore known for its nanny state, I have to wonder if all these talk about amendments and rights are overrated if children below 10 are dying for no reason. You don't even have political strife and crap like other countries as an excuse. It's not like being caught in the cross fires or in some random bombing and you think, there is a larger context here.
There isn't. Some guy got pissed off with his family and was allowed and given the means to take 20 children with him.
[Edit: Sorry feels like I'm just ranting now.][/quote]
S'all good mang, I'm frustrated and saddened at how big the picture is as to how fucked up this all is too. It's not a simple matter of just banning or limiting sales of weapons, there's a fundamental change that needs to be done to the system itself to prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again and to ensure that the steps taken aren't just token gestures. But how does the U.S. do that?