The most insane anti-gun op-ed of all time

[IndyDave1776]

"Going North Korea" on us is a step backwards. There are some very smart people at the very top, making decisions. They'll prepare ahead of time. They'll change the rules of the game to suit their needs, create extra players, whatever they have to do. But they wont move backwards. Its far better to get us to do what they want us to do because we want to do it ​instead of forcing us to do it.

I would agree and expect them to continue down this path so long as they are able. The problem is that they started doing this operating on a foundation of substance. This progressed to a foundation that was increasingly imaginary to the point where it is now running on smoke and mirrors. You can only run an economy on smoke and mirrors so long. You are right that they prefer to milk the cow by way of persuading the cow that it needs to be milked rather than by force, but eventually, as you take out of the system without putting anything back in, you run out of milk. At that point, persuasion to give up resources that do not exist is irrelevant, and, then we arrive at North Korea.

 

[jamil]

That's only true within a narrow band where the government has (and is willing to expend) enough political capital to put down a rebellion, but not enough to do whatever it takes to win.

Any government has to maintain some permission to rule. An oppressive government is more likely to be overthrown by its citizens than a representative government.

You're trying to argue that something very unlikely is the likeliest thing to happen. Sure, if a government has calculated that the risks of political fallout are worth it, maybe a scorched earth reaction is on the table.

The fact remains, the extent to which a government is willing to destroy its citizens is much greater with an armed society than a disarmed one. The scorched earth option simply isn't necessary for unarmed citizens as they're already conquered. The prospect of using those kinds of tactics must have a goal worth the consequences. And I just don't think that's possible today in the US.

That doesn't mean we're not subjected to some forms of tyranny anyway in the US. The tax structure is an example of that. But those things aren't so grievous that enough people are willing to take up arms against. Armed citizens also have some calculus to do.

 

[ZenMaster]

I would agree and expect them to continue down this path so long as they are able. The problem is that they started doing this operating on a foundation of substance. This progressed to a foundation that was increasingly imaginary to the point where it is now running on smoke and mirrors. You can only run an economy on smoke and mirrors so long. You are right that they prefer to milk the cow by way of persuading the cow that it needs to be milked rather than by force, but eventually, as you take out of the system without putting anything back in, you run out of milk. At that point, persuasion to give up resources that do not exist is irrelevant, and, then we arrive at North Korea.

Even gold is only valuable because we all agree it is. There doesnt have to be gold or silver or anything behind our currency. For all we know there is no gold. It really doesnt matter either way.

But that aside, they'll see the "end" coming and divert the trajectory of the game as need arises, towards something more sustainable. They'll be out ahead of it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Even gold is only valuable because we all agree it is. There doesnt have to be gold or silver or anything behind our currency. For all we know there is no gold. It really doesnt matter either way.

But that aside, they'll see the "end" coming and divert the trajectory of the game as need arises, towards something more sustainable. They'll be out ahead of it.

You seem to be applying a lot of faith here. In absolute terms, anything that you can't eat, drink, wear, take shelter under, or derive some pleasure from is not valuable. Any type of economic trade good, be it money, gold, silver, or generally accepted barter goods, are only means to the above-mentioned ends. People only agree to arbitrary value when it serves their interests, generally as a device for score-keeping. If food becomes unavailable, will most any of the things we generally assign value have enough value to you to sell what food you have? My point is that no matter how talented those people may be at their shell games, their global-scale game of three card Monte cannot create value, only the illusion of it. It can continue when people have to wait a year longer to acquire the latest and greatest large screen television. It cannot continue when people have to wait a year to get food.

 

[jamil]

Even gold is only valuable because we all agree it is. There doesnt have to be gold or silver or anything behind our currency. For all we know there is no gold. It really doesnt matter either way.

But that aside, they'll see the "end" coming and divert the trajectory of the game as need arises, towards something more sustainable. They'll be out ahead of it.

Gold is valuable because of its rarity and demand. As such its value is much more tangible and less manipulable than the full faith and credit of the United States. That's about all I have to say about that.

 

[ZenMaster]

You seem to be applying a lot of faith here. In absolute terms, anything that you can't eat, drink, wear, take shelter under, or derive some pleasure from is not valuable. Any type of economic trade good, be it money, gold, silver, or generally accepted barter goods, are only means to the above-mentioned ends. People only agree to arbitrary value when it serves their interests, generally as a device for score-keeping. If food becomes unavailable, will most any of the things we generally assign value have enough value to you to sell what food you have? My point is that no matter how talented those people may be at their shell games, their global-scale game of three card Monte cannot create value, only the illusion of it. It can continue when people have to wait a year longer to acquire the latest and greatest large screen television. It cannot continue when people have to wait a year to get food.

I agree completely.

 

[ZenMaster]

Gold is valuable because of its rarity and demand. As such its value is much more tangible and less manipulable than the full faith and credit of the United States. That's about all I have to say about that.

Its valuable because people want it. But people only want it because its valuable. I have this funny thought when I think about gold - what would I actually do with gold? I bet I'm not alone when I say the only thing I'd do is trade it for money. I'd much rather have cash than gold.

But it doesnt have intrinsic value. Its a terrible metal for making tools of any sort. From a practical standpoint, it wouldnt matter if there was no gold. Our way of life can continue unimpeded without it.

 

[jamil]

Its valuable because people want it. But people only want it because its valuable. I have this funny thought when I think about gold - what would I actually do with gold? I bet I'm not alone when I say the only thing I'd do is trade it for money. I'd much rather have cash than gold.

But it doesnt have intrinsic value. Its a terrible metal for making tools of any sort. From a practical standpoint, it wouldnt matter if there was no gold. Our way of life can continue unimpeded without it.

I'm sure life will improve your imagination.

 

[chipbennett]

While you're referring to the first page, please see my response to GodFearinGunTotin where I specified a nuclear power willing to use scorched earth tactics. So far, the responses have either brought up Vietnam (a war where we weren't willing to use nuclear weapons) or have insisted that the US wouldn't use nuclear weapons (which by definition disqualifies them from being "willing to use scorched earth tactics"). It's like asking why the sky is blue and getting "because of the iron in hemoglobin" as a response.

The original premise is that US citizens have no need to assert a right to keep and bear arms, because the state can now wield so much more firepower that the citizenry as to render the available firepower of the citizenry moot.

The relevant superpower in this context is the United States. The relevant question is whether or not the United States would be willing to drop a nuclear bomb on a US city (or, in your terms, to use a "scorched earth" policy).

My response is that the relevant superpower (the US), even if it wanted to, could not wield the full might of the military against the US citizenry, because the rank-and-file military would not carry out their orders.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Its valuable because people want it. But people only want it because its valuable. I have this funny thought when I think about gold - what would I actually do with gold? I bet I'm not alone when I say the only thing I'd do is trade it for money. I'd much rather have cash than gold.

But it doesnt have intrinsic value. Its a terrible metal for making tools of any sort. From a practical standpoint, it wouldnt matter if there was no gold. Our way of life can continue unimpeded without it.

I would have to add to this that gold's value has rested largely on its scarcity, durability (it is nearly indestructible, not in form but in substance--i.e, it doesn't rust, corrode, evaporate, or oxidize), and its beauty, making it a niche luxury good. Proponents are fond of reminding us that gold has never been worth zero. Then again, most non-waste products have never been worth zero. The biggest problem I see with faith in gold at this point in history is that for nearly a century, its rarity has been shrinking dramatically, particularly with the large reserves which were the ignition point for the Anglo-Boer war and have been increasing world supply significantly ever since. That said, you are right that you can't eat it, wear it, or shelter under it.

 

[Lowe0]

The original premise is that US citizens have no need to assert a right to keep and bear arms, because the state can now wield so much more firepower that the citizenry as to render the available firepower of the citizenry moot.

The relevant superpower in this context is the United States. The relevant question is whether or not the United States would be willing to drop a nuclear bomb on a US city (or, in your terms, to use a "scorched earth" policy).

My response is that the relevant superpower (the US), even if it wanted to, could not wield the full might of the military against the US citizenry, because the rank-and-file military would not carry out their orders.

Assuming that the US military will disobey an order to attack the US population with nuclear weapons, why assume that they'd be willing to attack it with conventional weapons, even small arms?

 

[eldirector]

My response is that the relevant superpower (the US), even if it wanted to, could not wield the full might of the military against the US citizenry, because the rank-and-file military would not carry out their orders.

My argument still stands. The US has done it before. The CURRENT rank-and-file MAY not allow it, but times are guaranteed to change.

 

[SSGSAD]

Greg Littell: The idea of ?armed rebellion? in the U.S. is ludicrous | TheUnion.com

"In the Revolutionary War, Americans were essentially armed similarly to the British; they both had muskets, swords, and cannons. Now, the arms disparity between a “tyrannical government” and citizens is so huge that the idea of “armed rebellion” is ludicrous.

Assuming the military was part of the tyranny (which it would have to be for tyranny to have any meaning), any rebelling national band of “patriots” would be told something like, “you either lay down your arms or the entire city of Dallas, Texas will disappear. You have one hour. If you continue, the next city to disappear will be Atlanta, Georgia.”

Yes, he's seriously talking about nuking American cities to end an armed insurrection.

80 million AMERICANS, own 200 million guns..... Yes, there will be a fight, until the end ..... whatever that is .....

 

[chipbennett]

Assuming that the US military will disobey an order to attack the US population with nuclear weapons, why assume that they'd be willing to attack it with conventional weapons, even small arms?

I would not be willing to make such an assumption. You seem to imply that I would?

My argument still stands. The US has done it before. The CURRENT rank-and-file MAY not allow it, but times are guaranteed to change.

...and that is why a would-be totalitarian like Obama desires a nationalized, militarized, police force.

 

[jamil]

I've said before that the calculations for the political consequences for turning arms on citizens is typically to high in the US to leave that on the table. I can imagine circumstances where the public is seduced into thinking that it's the right thing to do. That certainly changes the calculations.

 

[Lowe0]

I would not be willing to make such an assumption. You seem to imply that I would?



...and that is why a would-be totalitarian like Obama desires a nationalized, militarized, police force.

Why would that police force be willing to turn its arms on us, either?

 

[chipbennett]

Why would that police force be willing to turn its arms on us, either?

...because many of them - especially/primarily the militarized part of that force - already do? Because low-IQ recruits that fit certain psychological profiles are actively being sought by those who would like to put the police force to such a use? Because unlike with the military, the law already protects those in the police force who would do so?

 

[eldirector]

Want some good fiction on the subject?

http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-Forei...qid=1447352492&sr=8-1&keywords=mathew+bracken

 

[jbombelli]

No, I don't. I just don't agree with the fantasy of fighting off a nuclear power with nothing more than my AR and a can-do attitude.

Then why do you mention it?

 

[Lowe0]

Then why do you mention it?

Take it up with the guy who suggested fighting off the mightiest nation on earth with small arms.