The Right to Defend (1 Viewer)

wannaspoon

ремове кебаб
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
1,402
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Uni Grad
2014
Following the "success" of the "Right to Offend" thread...

I thought I would make a new thread, regarding the right to defend...

Sooooo, it may not seem prudent, however, the right to own firearms for the sake of defence... Is it justifiable to own a firearm for the sake of defending yourself and/or others

My two yen...

- If firearms are outlawed, government has superiority over the use of violence with firearms, effectively creating a governmental monopoly over violence;
- Government globally have participated in democide, to the extent that 262 million people have been killed by government since the beginning of the 20th century (With that number only increasing daily);
- A completely disarmed population is a completely defenceless population;
- Having a citizenry that can defend themselves provides a check and balance to prevent totalitarian regimes from existing;
- Many revolutions and civil wars that were for our "freedoms" were at the end of a gun barrel (US war on independence, the US civil war, etc)...
- etc...
 

Amleops

Perpetual Student
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
816
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Non-lethal forms of defence (e.g. pepper spray) should be legalised. For sure.

For guns, I do agree with all your points, but I'm yet to be fully convinced that guns should be used. It certainly has merits and a debate should be had, but I'm not sure whether or not the benefits outweigh the dangers.
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,757
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
No because there are too many idiots that don't know how to handle a firearm. I don't want some retard possessing a firearm that he's incapable of operating properly. If everyone were to have a firearm, you're better off setting up a national militia system where everyone is trained and posses rifles at their homes like switzerland.
 

wannaspoon

ремове кебаб
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
1,402
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Uni Grad
2014
No because there are too many idiots that don't know how to handle a firearm. I don't want some retard possessing a firearm that he's incapable of operating properly. If everyone were to have a firearm, you're better off setting up a national militia system where everyone is trained and posses rifles at their homes like switzerland.
Would have thought the biggest "idiot" is government, yet, they have free reign to possess whatever they want, from a weapons perspective...
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,757
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Would have thought the biggest "idiot" is government, yet, they have free reign to possess whatever they want, from a weapons perspective...
Maybe because cops and armed forces go through specialized training programs on the use of deadly force? The monopoly of violence by the state is by far the best means to drive down crime. If you want to bitch and moan about gov possessing all the guns, move to the Philippines where everyone and their dog has a glock. See how safe you feel.
 

Amundies

Commander-in-Chief
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
689
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Uni Grad
2018
The government might be "the biggest idiot" but the ones who actually use the guns know how to use them.

You can have 22 million people owning firearms, but it only takes a few hundred of those to cause a lot of damage, and even fewer to cause fear within the community. Also you speak of needing guns in such a way that it implies that we're going to have to get ready to overthrow the government. Why would we do that? We have elections every 3 years, just vote them out (we have this thing called a democracy if you didn't realise). The government's not there to kill you, take the alfoil cap off your head (although in a different country this may not be the case).
 

wannaspoon

ремове кебаб
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
1,402
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Uni Grad
2014
^ I like how you think democratic process cannot be revoked... Pre Nazi Germany had democratic process as well... Until Hitler took power and decided to set fire to the Reichstag saying it was a terrorist attack by communists... From there, democratic, civil and human rights were gradually taken away from the German people (In the name of fighting "communism" and "terrorism")... Had those right not been revoked, the Germans may have been able to stop Germany invading Poland and France and may have also stopped WWII

The same thing can happen irrespective of where you live, and, in some circumstances, is repeating itself...

It then doesn't seem unreasonable to try and protect yourself from government and others, given the turbulent times that we presently seem to live in...
 
Last edited:

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,911
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
^ I like how you think democratic process cannot be revoked... Pre Nazi Germany had democratic process as well... Until Hitler took power and decided to set fire to the Reichstag saying it was a terrorist attack by communists... From there, democratic, civil and human rights were gradually taken away from the German people (In the name of fighting "communism" and "terrorism")... Had those right not been revoked, the Germans may have been able to stop Germany invading Poland and France and may have also stopped WWII

The same thing can happen irrespective of where you live, and, in some circumstances, is repeating itself...

It then doesn't seem unreasonable to try and protect yourself from government and others, given the turbulent times that we presently seem to live in...
the turbulent times we live in is all the more reason not to arm a society on edge
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,757
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
^ I like how you think democratic process cannot be revoked... Pre Nazi Germany had democratic process as well... Until Hitler took power and decided to set fire to the Reichstag saying it was a terrorist attack by communists... From there, democratic, civil and human rights were gradually taken away from the German people (In the name of fighting "communism" and "terrorism")... Had those right not been revoked, the Germans may have been able to stop Germany invading Poland and France and may have also stopped WWII

The same thing can happen irrespective of where you live, and, in some circumstances, is repeating itself...

It then doesn't seem unreasonable to try and protect yourself from government and others, given the turbulent times that we presently seem to live in...
Ummm you do realize almost all of Germans supported the things the Nazis did when they took power right? The SS and SA were essentially made up from lower-class germans whilst the military (who don't like committing warcrimes bar the east) were made up of aristocrats.

80% of insurgencies across the world fail for a reason.
 

RishBonjour99

Active Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
367
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Following the "success" of the "Right to Offend" thread...

I thought I would make a new thread, regarding the right to defend...

Sooooo, it may not seem prudent, however, the right to own firearms for the sake of defence... Is it justifiable to own a firearm for the sake of defending yourself and/or others

My two yen...

- If firearms are outlawed, government has superiority over the use of violence with firearms, effectively creating a governmental monopoly over violence;
- Government globally have participated in democide, to the extent that 262 million people have been killed by government since the beginning of the 20th century (With that number only increasing daily);
- A completely disarmed population is a completely defenceless population;
- Having a citizenry that can defend themselves provides a check and balance to prevent totalitarian regimes from existing;
- Many revolutions and civil wars that were for our "freedoms" were at the end of a gun barrel (US war on independence, the US civil war, etc)...
- etc...
Government having monopoly over 'violence' is the best way to go in western societies where there is at least some system of accountability in place.
Do you want to read more 'Mum shoots 7 kids dead' or 'Teen gun rage in school'? There has been no shortage of those in recent times.
 

wannaspoon

ремове кебаб
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
1,402
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Uni Grad
2014
Government having monopoly over 'violence' is the best way to go in western societies where there is at least some system of accountability in place.
Do you want to read more 'Mum shoots 7 kids dead' or 'Teen gun rage in school'? There has been no shortage of those in recent times.
Some system of accountability, should it mean having an effective system of accountability...
 

wannaspoon

ремове кебаб
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
1,402
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Uni Grad
2014
Ummm you do realize almost all of Germans supported the things the Nazis did when they took power right? The SS and SA were essentially made up from lower-class germans whilst the military (who don't like committing warcrimes bar the east) were made up of aristocrats.

80% of insurgencies across the world fail for a reason.
What about the other 20%?

Surely there would have been some form of opposition that would have at least prevented the Nazi's from metastasising into what they became... Even if unsuccessful, it would have certainly hindered the Nazi advance...
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,757
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
What about the other 20%?

Surely there would have been some form of opposition that would have at least prevented the Nazi's from metastasising into what they became... Even if unsuccessful, it would have certainly hindered the Nazi advance...
The other 20% were programs done by foreign powers with little local support.

There were oppositions to the Nazi's, ever heard of the partisans? Those guys got slaughtered to shit. People's freedom will more likely disappear like kristalnact more so than anything else. The only way to secure a country's true freedom is to have a national militia system and a proper balance of power in government.
 

SylviaB

sorry if i offended anyon
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,058
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
^ I like how you think democratic process cannot be revoked... Pre Nazi Germany had democratic process as well... Until Hitler took power and decided to set fire to the Reichstag saying it was a terrorist attack by communists... From there, democratic, civil and human rights were gradually taken away from the German people (In the name of fighting "communism" and "terrorism")...
People act as if nazi germany was like the USSR. In reality, unless you were jewish, catholic or were a vocal opponent of the government, the government did not intrude into your life very much at all. Most germans were very happy with germany's domestic policies because naziism wasn't a violent minority revolution foisted upon them.


Had those right not been revoked, the Germans may have been able to stop Germany invading Poland and France and may have also stopped WWII..
most germans had no interest in stopping them though
 

wannaspoon

ремове кебаб
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
1,402
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Uni Grad
2014
The government's not there to kill you, take the alfoil cap off your head (although in a different country this may not be the case).
The point of me creating this thread is not for tin foil hat discussion, it is more about creating an constructive and serious debate on the appropriateness of gun control...

The rhetoric behind the gun control debate is pathetic on both sides (really sick of the "I like guns" and "think of the children" arguments)... I was hoping to instead have a constructive discussion about gun control...

The other 20% were programs done by foreign powers with little local support.

There were oppositions to the Nazi's, ever heard of the partisans? Those guys got slaughtered to shit. People's freedom will more likely disappear like kristalnact more so than anything else. The only way to secure a country's true freedom is to have a national militia system and a proper balance of power in government.
So you're not exactly disagreeing that a check and balance is needed and that democide can be a problem irrespective of where you live... To you it's more who wields the sword...

I don't exactly disagree with your point of view as well... However, it is hard to have some form of "national militia system" without government meddling, which would effectively make that system of government accountability moot...
 
Last edited:

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,757
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
People act as if nazi germany was like the USSR. In reality, unless you were jewish, catholic or were a vocal opponent of the government, the government did not intrude into your life very much at all. Most germans were very happy with germany's domestic policies because naziism wasn't a violent minority revolution foisted upon them.




most germans had no interest in stopping them though
Even most german jews at the time followed the "laws" of wearing the star of david, since a lot of germans believe that following the law no matter how ridiculous is part of their duties as citizens. Most germans at the time don't really know about what happened truly happened to the jews. If the nazi's were that open about their actions they wouldn't have burnt off thousands of documents.

Sylvia: most southern germans are catholic, the nazi's didnt really bother catholics at all.
 

Crobat

#tyrannosaurusREKT
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
1,151
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
I understand the points you are making but statistics (source) show far and wide that guns are rarely used to stop crimes from happening (summary of source) and quite frankly you can never guarantee the mindset of someone purchasing a gun months or even years down the track

I think they're an unnecessary liability in a country that is relatively safe compared to others
 

wannaspoon

ремове кебаб
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
1,402
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Uni Grad
2014
I understand the points you are making but statistics (source) show far and wide that guns are rarely used to stop crimes from happening (summary of source) and quite frankly you can never guarantee the mindset of someone purchasing a gun months or even years down the track

I think they're an unnecessary liability in a country that is relatively safe compared to others
With the utilitarian perspective aside, you're not saying that it is not a means of government accountability?
 

Crobat

#tyrannosaurusREKT
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
1,151
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
With the utilitarian perspective aside, you're not saying that it is not a means of government accountability?
i think it'd be a poor system of government accountability, particularly in a democracy

there are other means (or should be other non-violent means implemented) for holding governments accountable and any sort of government attacking its own citizens in the western world isn't really a reality that we need to worry about

also i stumbled across this last night and i thought it was hilarious:



 

wannaspoon

ремове кебаб
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
1,402
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Uni Grad
2014
^ The exact thing I was trying to avoid in this thread in those videos... Obviously that person is clearly fucked in the head and can't win a debate with a prawn... If you didn't note my previous post on why I created this thread, I wanted to create it to try and have a constructive discussion about gun control... I wanted to do this by stepping away from the rhetoric of "I like guns" and "think of the children" quotes... Obviously, John Oliver just brought that guy on because he is a complete potato and it is not hard to win a debate against him and make him look like a complete fool...
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top