If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US News)   El Wolverines   (usnews.com) divider line 115
    More: Dumbass, Wayne LaPierre, jackboots, Politics of Mexico, CPAC  
•       •       •

8154 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Mar 2013 at 3:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-15 09:07:29 PM  

mutterfark: Assume that the US government decided to confiscate all civilian owned firearms. Let's even grant you the full cooperation of every law enforcement agency in the country and an up-to-date national database. What are the odds of success?
Difficulty: Without igniting civil war.

/psst, they're not coming for your guns




I don't think thats the real concern in most states today. As you suggest, broad gun ownership prevents outright confiscation.

I'd be more worried about long term efforts to dissuade new gun owners by amping up the difficulty to own and grandfathering an increasing number of weapons out of production.
There will be less to buy and it will be harder and more expensive to legally get it. You'll be harassed by the government for what you own and insulted by the press for talking about it.
Keep that up for a generation or two and it will lower the number of gun owners to a point where confiscation isn't as difficult to sell. The criminals will still own guns and kill, probably more violently than now, so you'll always have a demand that something be done.

We've already got a generation that's forgotten about the power of protest and allows itself to be stuffed into free speech zones. It lets the government rummage through our personal data like nothing is wrong, and throw people in jail indefinitely with no questions asked.

Eliminating a right is easier than many think. It just takes time and persistence.
 
2013-03-15 09:17:52 PM  

mutterfark: Assume that the US government decided to confiscate all civilian owned firearms. Let's even grant you the full cooperation of every law enforcement agency in the country and an up-to-date national database. What are the odds of success?
Difficulty: Without igniting civil war.

/psst, they're not coming for your guns


Oddly enough, that's exactly what the gun-grabbing politicians are talking about: confiscation.
 
2013-03-15 10:16:19 PM  

redmid17: Witty_Retort: Clemkadidlefark: Background checks = Registration
Registration = Confiscation

For you anti-gun slobbering bags of hot air, see the History of gun registration then confiscation in, I don't know, maybe 21,162,000 places on the WWW; your local Library; in the pages of these things called books; and lastly The Black Book of Communism.

Or, you could do this really really hard work called  research and look up the French Black Code, or maybe any of the Laws passed to ensure Blacks could not possess firearms to protect themselves ... oh, hell. You won't do any of that.

You emote rather than think.

Thimken be hard. Let's play video games instead

 Any proof that has happened on US soil?
Not the anti-Blacks laws. No lists were made there. Didn't really need lists.
The listing then confiscation thing. That happened?

/21,161,950 of those www hits are the same 5 chat rooms circle jerk posting to each other.

In NYC and California it did.


oh.

dittybopper:
Yes, but in both cases (NYC and California) was a "soft" confiscation that was widely ignored.

Oes Noes!
 
2013-03-15 10:47:54 PM  

Witty_Retort: Any proof that has happened on US soil?


Is US soil sacred, or something?  Humans and their greediness for control is pretty much a constant throughout history.
 
2013-03-15 11:54:11 PM  

way south: mutterfark: Assume that the US government decided to confiscate all civilian owned firearms. Let's even grant you the full cooperation of every law enforcement agency in the country and an up-to-date national database. What are the odds of success?
Difficulty: Without igniting civil war.

/psst, they're not coming for your guns

I don't think thats the real concern in most states today. As you suggest, broad gun ownership prevents outright confiscation.

I'd be more worried about long term efforts to dissuade new gun owners by amping up the difficulty to own and grandfathering an increasing number of weapons out of production.
There will be less to buy and it will be harder and more expensive to legally get it. You'll be harassed by the government for what you own and insulted by the press for talking about it.
Keep that up for a generation or two and it will lower the number of gun owners to a point where confiscation isn't as difficult to sell. The criminals will still own guns and kill, probably more violently than now, so you'll always have a demand that something be done.

We've already got a generation that's forgotten about the power of protest and allows itself to be stuffed into free speech zones. It lets the government rummage through our personal data like nothing is wrong, and throw people in jail indefinitely with no questions asked.

Eliminating a right is easier than many think. It just takes time and persistence.


One of the smartest posts I've seen in a long time. Sure, it may seem ridiculous now, but recall what sorts of things seemed outlandish only a few decades ago.

/Leaving NY for a more right and gun-friendly state
 
2013-03-16 12:44:41 AM  

trappedspirit: Witty_Retort: Any proof that has happened on US soil?

Is US soil sacred, or something?  Humans and their greediness for control is pretty much a constant throughout history.


About the only place I know of where gun confiscation has actually happened and worked was in Japan shortly after rifles were introduced. The samurai class decided they didn't like the idea of common peasants being able to kill them from a distance, so the shogun banned the import of Western firearms and put strict controls on who and where guns could be made inside Japan. Since Japan is an island nation, keeping new guns out was relatively easy; and since it was a feudal monarchy at the time, keeping guns from being made and distributed was even easier. Rounding up and destroying the guns in the country was no harder, since the samurai had all the money and power.

I doubt that could happen anywhere modernly because of the ease of production and the difficulty of sealing up a country's borders and entry points.
 
2013-03-16 04:08:12 AM  

Gyrfalcon: trappedspirit: Witty_Retort: Any proof that has happened on US soil?

Is US soil sacred, or something?  Humans and their greediness for control is pretty much a constant throughout history.

About the only place I know of where gun confiscation has actually happened and worked was in Japan shortly after rifles were introduced. The samurai class decided they didn't like the idea of common peasants being able to kill them from a distance, so the shogun banned the import of Western firearms and put strict controls on who and where guns could be made inside Japan. Since Japan is an island nation, keeping new guns out was relatively easy; and since it was a feudal monarchy at the time, keeping guns from being made and distributed was even easier. Rounding up and destroying the guns in the country was no harder, since the samurai had all the money and power.

I doubt that could happen anywhere modernly because of the ease of production and the difficulty of sealing up a country's borders and entry points.


The way I remember it was that even before guns, commoners weren't permitted anything more offensive than the equivalent of a pocket knife.  Many "martial arts weapons" originated as farming and fishing implements to get around such restrictions.
 
2013-03-16 04:10:22 AM  

LaughingRadish: The way I remember it was that even before guns, commoners weren't permitted anything more offensive than the equivalent of a pocket knife. Many "martial arts weapons" originated as farming and fishing implements to get around such restrictions.


Right and wrong.  "martial art weapons" evolved that way due to cost, not due to regulation. (no government existed that could enforce them, with the exception of the chinese dynasties)
 
2013-03-16 12:32:21 PM  

Witty_Retort: dittybopper:
Yes, but in both cases (NYC and California) was a "soft" confiscation that was widely ignored.

Oes Noes!


Until you get caught, and end up looking at a felony weapons charge for something you legally purchased and owned, perhaps for years or decades.
 
2013-03-16 01:28:44 PM  

Yogimus: LaughingRadish: The way I remember it was that even before guns, commoners weren't permitted anything more offensive than the equivalent of a pocket knife. Many "martial arts weapons" originated as farming and fishing implements to get around such restrictions.

Right and wrong.  "martial art weapons" evolved that way due to cost, not due to regulation. (no government existed that could enforce them, with the exception of the chinese dynasties)


There are several distinct branches of Japanese hand to hand weaponry that survive to this day- the one most people think of, with sticks and oars and staves and the iron forks and so forth is called kobudo and originates in Okinawan kenpo. The Okinawans were a feisty people subjugated by the Japanese from the big Islands and engaged in long-running guerrilla unrest against them. The martial arts they practiced mostly came from traditional Chinese gongfu that the islanders adapted and practiced in semi-secret clubs. Weirdly, this is the basis for most modern martial arts schools in the US, up to and including MMA gyms.

Japanese weapon training used real weapons- bow, sword, spear, and so on, and were organized in prestigious gentlemen's schools that were the final resting place of the samurai class in the 19th c. They were considered a finishing school for gentlemen, in a way, but were largely in decay by the time of the Russo-Japanese war, and WWI finished them off for good as Japan began to militarize. More or less the same for the Okinawan kenpoka. I big stick isn't very convincing when the police have sidearms.

Kendo and archery remained as weapon sports throughout, as they were seen as a point of national pride. After WWII, American interest brought a resurgence of both Okinawan kobudo and the old Japanese sword ryu, though the actual experts were thin on the ground by then, so we ended up with a vast mixture of pure hooey and legitimate traditional schools transmitting traditional techniques with hand-to-hand weapons. across the board. there's about a 90% chance any traditional weapons practitioner you want to learn from is largely inauthentic. That holds true for Japan as well as the US, they have as large appetite for romantic nonsense as we do
 
2013-03-16 04:03:15 PM  
way south: Reasonable, intelligent post.

I see what you're saying, though it seems a bit like the "slippery slope" argument. Mostly I see the idea that requiring registration of guns leads to confiscation. That seems like a paranoid delusion. To take it further by imagining that a foreign power might invade the US and use a hypothetical database to confiscate civilian weapons, IMHO, puts you into flat-earther territory.
I do not oppose ownership of guns, even many proposed for banning. Prohibition won't work, but why the opposition to registration? Every argument I've heard seems like the "slippery slope". I think private sales need to be recordeas well, but that too comes with issues.
Damn complicated problem and it won't be solved by my brilliant(sarcasm) "insights".
 
2013-03-16 04:30:28 PM  

mutterfark: I see what you're saying, though it seems a bit like the "slippery slope" argument. Mostly I see the idea that requiring registration of guns leads to confiscation. That seems like a paranoid delusion.


A few points:

1. Slippery slopes are a logical fallacy, but they exist in the real world.  In fact, their mechanisms have been described.   There is a really interesting paper on that very subject.

2. It has actually been put forth as a strategy by pro-gun control persons and organizations.  Every time you hear "good first step" in controlling guns, that implies a slippery slope.

3. Registration doesn't inevitably lead to confiscation, but it does lower the cost for government to enact it in the future, and it facilitates it.  That's how guns were confiscated in Australia and the UK.

4. It's not a paranoid delusion when people are actually talking about it:   Governor Cuomo in New York mentioned confiscation as an option back in January.  Mostly, they avoid talking about it, though, because nothing fires up gun people like the "C" word.
 
2013-03-16 11:21:12 PM  
dittybopper:

Fark ate my long version when I hit preview.
Short version: I just don't believe that gun control advocates will ever have the political capital required to actually pull it off.
But the farking Patriot Act keeps getting renewed, so what the hell do I know?
 
2013-03-16 11:49:20 PM  

Gyrfalcon: The samurai class decided they didn't like the idea of common peasants being able to kill them from a distance, so the shogun banned the import of Western firearms and put strict controls on who and where guns could be made inside Japan.


Naturally I read 'shotgun'
 
2013-03-18 09:30:39 AM  

mutterfark: Short version: I just don't believe that gun control advocates will ever have the political capital required to actually pull it off.


That's why slippery slopes actually *WORK*.

If you were to go back in time to England in 1920, and say "Hey, before little infant James here dies of old age, all modern handguns will be banned and confiscated, and long guns will be very, very tightly controlled", they'd have probably laughed at you.

It didn't happen all at once:  At first, the registration was quite "reasonable", and in fact it was that way by design to encourage compliance.  Then, gradually, over the decades, the increased the cost of compliance , and that had the effect of reducing the number of people who legally owned guns.  By the time the 1980's and 1990's roll around, they are a small minority:  The UK confiscated all modern handguns that were legally registered, and only about 57,000 people in a nation of over 60 million owned them, a tiny minority because the government had made it increasingly difficult to own them.

Just 88 years prior, legally owned handguns were common enough, and *CARRIED* often enough by law-abiding citizens, that the police could borrow them from passersby.

That is what is at work here.  Will it happen in our lifetimes?  Probably not, but you can't be sure:  I was in the UK back in the early 1980's, and I didn't get the sense that within 5 or 6 years semiautomatic and pump action rifles and shotguns would be banned, nor did I think that within 16 years handguns would be completely banned.

Thing is, I don't want the littlebopper to have to turn in his guns, or his children to turn in theirs, or their children.  I want to leave them the same freedoms I enjoyed.  More, actually, given NYS's new laws.
 
Displayed 15 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report