Newt: Every Human Should Have a Gun!

[GoodSarmatian]

Correct. But I HAVE been to America, and I can firmly say that I don't really like the attitude of a good almost half of the country.

Dude, if you lived in Germany you wouldn't like the attitude of half the people in this country.
True, every four years you can take a look at US primaries or elections and say to yourself 'well, at least we're not that bad', but we got other problems.
The only significant difference between Fox News and BILD is that the latter shows tits and is a newspaper instead of a TV network.
And if you look at the whole of Europe you'll sometimes find clowns like Berlusconi leading a country (and that guy's like herpes, he always seems to come back).

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Dude, if you lived in Germany you wouldn't like the attitude of half the people in this country.
True, every four years you can take a look at US primaries or elections and say to yourself 'well, at least we're not that bad', but we got other problems.
The only significant difference between Fox News and BILD is that the latter shows tits and is a newspaper instead of a TV network.
And if you look at the whole of Europe you'll sometimes find clowns like Berlusconi leading a country (and that guy's like herpes, he always seems to come back).

But at least Germany has a health care system worth talking about, right? True, though, my perception might be skewed. I had a very Pro-Deutschland German teacher and a very pro-Europe AP European History teacher. Perhaps they've colored my perceptions some.

 

[kochman]

But I don't want a gun!

What if it could be surgically attached and make you some kind of futuristic cyborg machine man?

 

[Farm Boy]

And what's with the scarf thing ? Is this now a stereoptype for Europeans ? The only guys I see wearing a scarf when it's not necessitated by weather are hipster types. It's a very small and borderline insufferable part of our population.

Huh. I was just basing that off of the Europeans I hung with regularly at University and the couple I have known since. I think one is Irish, one Polish, one Bulgarian, and three are German. The only one that didn't wear a scarf regularly was the Polish guy. Maybe it's the Illinois wind.

 

[Antilogic]

What if it could be surgically attached and make you some kind of futuristic cyborg machine man?

Ever seen RoboGeisha?

 

[Oerdin]

So, he wants to extend part of the US Constitution to the entire world via a UN mandate, yet simultaneously is attacking another UN treaty by claiming it is not binding on the United States? Is this man a complete clown?

Yes, all the Republican candidates are clowns and, sadly, Newt wasn't even the most clownish of the lot. See Bauchmann and Santorum.

 

[KaiserElectric]

Call me crazy, but this actually sounds like a good idea. The freedom to bear arms would go a long way in bringing about equal rights in places like Iran and China.

 

[Cutlass]

Call me crazy, but this actually sounds like a good idea. The freedom to bear arms would go a long way in bringing about equal rights in places like Iran and China.

Like the way it brings constant kidnapping and murder to Columbia and Somalia?

 

[KaiserElectric]

I refer to places that have an established government actively opressing its subjects, where arming its citizenry would go a long way towards the rise of a just, democratic regime. You're referring to places where the government is corrupted and largely ineffective in exerting any authority over its own people and political power is wielded by drug lords and brigands.

I'm talking oranges, you're talking apples. Two very different situations considered bad by the both of us. A law like this would theoreticly help in the countries I described, while the countries you describe would be largely unaffected due to the lack of any governing authority.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Does the right to bear arms really exist in Colombia and Somalia or are they just overtly crime ridden places where criminal groups have easy access to black market weapons?

 

[KaiserElectric]

I wouldn't know personally, but the best guess would be the latter.

 

[Cutlass]

I refer to places that have an established government actively opressing its subjects, where arming its citizenry would go a long way towards the rise of a just, democratic regime. You're referring to places where the government is corrupted and largely ineffective in exerting any authority over its own people and political power is welded by drug lords and brigands.

In other words, I'm talking oranges, you're talking apples.

Not really, no. Places like Somalia and Columbia have never has central governments capable of keeping the peace. That's why it's so easy to have warlords and tribalism. Same is true of Afghanistan, which has had governments, but not in so long that for practical purposes it doesn't matter at all now. Iraq, many people have guns, but that just results in many people getting dead. You could arm the people of any number of countries with oppressive governments, but you can't say with any certainty that a "just, democratic regime" will be the result. It could just be endless bloodshed until a new tyrant seizes power and crushes the rest. Guns by themselves are not the way to get a peaceful government. They may be a piece of the puzzle. But they're more likely to just end in a lot of deaths.

 

[Cutlass]

Does the right to bear arms really exist in Colombia and Somalia or are they just overtly crime ridden places where criminal groups have easy access to black market weapons?

Say rather that there is no government capable of telling them that they can't kill whoever they want with whatever guns they can get their hands on.

 

[KaiserElectric]

Not really, no. Places like Somalia and Columbia have never has central governments capable of keeping the peace. That's why it's so easy to have warlords and tribalism. Same is true of Afghanistan, which has had governments, but not in so long that for practical purposes it doesn't matter at all now. Iraq, many people have guns, but that just results in many people getting dead. You could arm the people of any number of countries with oppressive governments, but you can't say with any certainty that a "just, democratic regime" will be the result. It could just be endless bloodshed until a new tyrant seizes power and crushes the rest. Guns by themselves are not the way to get a peaceful government. They may be a piece of the puzzle. But they're more likely to just end in a lot of deaths.

That outcome is certainly possible if you want to be a total pessimist about it. Arming the people of an opressive regime with guns can create a change for the better, even without bloodshed. Demands for democracy can hold a lot more weight when the demanders are armed and willing to overthrow the government to get that change. It's certainly not going to happen all the time, but if you believe humanity is bascily good, it's worth a shot. Remember the phrase 'political power grows out of the barrel of a gun'? Sometimes it works both ways.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Say rather that there is no government capable of telling them that they can't kill whoever they want with whatever guns they can get their hands on.

But that's not really "right to bear arms" is it?

 

[Arwon]

I refer to places that have an established government actively opressing its subjects, where arming its citizenry would go a long way towards the rise of a just, democratic regime. You're referring to places where the government is corrupted and largely ineffective in exerting any authority over its own people and political power is wielded by drug lords and brigands.

I'm talking oranges, you're talking apples. Two very different situations considered bad by the both of us. A law like this would theoreticly help in the countries I described, while the countries you describe would be largely unaffected due to the lack of any governing authority.

What sort of satisfaction ratings do you think the Chinese government has in China?

 

[kochman]

Iraq, many people have guns, but that just results in many people getting dead.

Part of the reason so many people have guns in Iraq... the AK is cheap... and, Saddam flooded the streets with them before the US invasion to create more havoc. A true a-hole that guy...

 

[Cutlass]

That outcome is certainly possible if you want to be a total pessimist about it. Arming the people of an opressive regime with guns can create a change for the better, even without bloodshed. Demands for democracy can hold a lot more weight when the demanders are armed and willing to overthrow the government to get that change. It's certainly not going to happen all the time, but if you believe humanity is bascily good, it's worth a shot. Remember the phrase 'political power grows out of the barrel of a gun'? Sometimes it works both ways.

What's the evidence for that though? Did democracy take root in the US because everyone had a gun? No, most people didn't. But aristocracy didn't take root because they couldn't compel enough people to stay put and live with it. Did democracy take root in western Europe because those people had guns? Didn't happen that way either. Same with Japan and South Korea. I can't think of a single example of a country that became a democracy because the bulk of the people were armed well enough to prevent the central government from maintaining order.

But there are a lot of examples of a broadly armed population descending into chaos and anarchy and lawlessness with great harm to the population.

But that's not really "right to bear arms" is it?

Not a "right" in terms of the government enshrining the rights in law. It happens like that when the government doesn't have a say in the matter, because it lacks the power to enforce any gun control. It doesn't matter what the national governments of Columbia, Somalia, Afghanistan, have to say on the matter: They cannot enforce their laws. The result is lawlessness and death, not democracy.

If you consider the Arab Spring nations, whether or not they end up with democracy is not going to be determined by whether or not the public has guns, but by whether or not whoever ends up in charge sees their continued best interest as sharing power or taking power. And if they try to take it, and the populace fights back with guns, then you still have the same cycle in the end. Only with civil war or insurrection in the meantime.

Maybe you'll end up with democracy, maybe you won't. But we've never seen it happen that way. Not yet.

 

[Ajidica]

Part of the reason so many people have guns in Iraq... the AK is cheap... and, Saddam flooded the streets with them before the US invasion to create more havoc. A true a-hole that guy...

Perhaps, but an a-hole that we created, sold weapons to on the cheap, and sold everything he needed to make poison gas to.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What if it could be surgically attached and make you some kind of futuristic cyborg machine man?

Wouldn't be possible. My awesome personality would reject the alien unwanted body.