TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

When did you start to distrust the government?

Go To

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#101: Apr 4th 2011 at 5:53:36 AM

Gun control is not cartoonishly evil, by any stretch of the imagination. My government does it, my rights aren't being oppressed in the slightest. Sure, I can't go down to the store and buy a gun in 10 minutes. But I could still get a gun if I wanted one, it'd just take a lot longer.

Be not afraid...
SavageHeathen Pro-Freedom Fanatic from Somewhere Since: Feb, 2011
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
#102: Apr 4th 2011 at 5:58:52 AM

You're allowing the government to decide whether you're entitled to self defense or not.

Self-defense is an inalienable right. They shouldn't be able to take that away from people.

Same goes for weed, booze, kinky sex, obscene speech and vice in general. These things fall under self-determination. The government should have no power to restrict them.

edited 4th Apr '11 5:59:41 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#103: Apr 4th 2011 at 6:06:16 AM

They're not taking it away. I can still get a gun if I want one.

Be not afraid...
Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#104: Apr 4th 2011 at 6:09:59 AM

To a degree they are, since they are making the decision as to whether you can be trusted with the means of self-defense, and what means are available to you.

Now, this may be a reasonable compromise because individual freedom is not the only principle that drives government decisions and the drafting of laws, but it's hard to argue that it's not restricting freedom to some degree.

A brighter future for a darker age.
LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#105: Apr 4th 2011 at 6:13:19 AM

How is it any different to requiring a license to drive a car, or a motorbike, or a truck?

A large percentage of laws are about restricting some people's freedom in order to preserve the (I would say more important) freedoms of others. A law restricts freedom by definition.

Be not afraid...
Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#106: Apr 4th 2011 at 6:18:20 AM

It's different in that there are not strong political lobbies arguing that nobody should be allowed to drive.

People who advocate the right to violent self-defense have seen firearm licensing as the first step in a slow ratchet toward complete bans, and prominent anti-gun advocates have indeed advocated for that kind of slow "weaning off" approach.

A brighter future for a darker age.
LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#107: Apr 4th 2011 at 6:21:51 AM

I haven't heard anything to that effect. Then again, I don't follow American politics that closely anyway.

Regardless, gun licensing doesn't necessarily lead to gun bans. It hasn't here.

Be not afraid...
Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#108: Apr 4th 2011 at 6:26:59 AM

Australia's firearms laws are in fact fairly restrictive.

Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a licence, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.

That's something that quite a few people would have a problem with in the US, at least.

A brighter future for a darker age.
LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#109: Apr 4th 2011 at 6:33:39 AM

Well, gun licensing in America wouldn't have to be as restrictive as them.

I still feel like it's a fair trade-off. My right to own a gun isn't as valuable to me as the right to not be gunned down by some loony who walked straight into a store and bought a gun.

I still disagree that gun control is 'cartoonishly evil'. Restrictive, yes, but not evil.

Be not afraid...
Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#110: Apr 4th 2011 at 6:37:41 AM

If gun licensing could be introduced in the US in a fashion that was NOT intended as a stalking-horse for taking guns away from law-abiding residents, restricting the ability to act in self-defense, or for the purposes of political grandstanding by politicians, then I would support it. However, I don't see that happening. It's the polarization of American politics at work. Sensible solutions the people as a whole would support appear to be way too uninteresting, or something. You can't fight over sensible.

A brighter future for a darker age.
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#111: Apr 4th 2011 at 6:41:30 AM

^^ And my right to own a gun and use it in self defense trumps the concerns about some loony on the street. Better to have a gun and not need it than need one and not have it.

Considering every state in history that has restricted or outright banned firearm ownership was at one point a tyrannical regime (yes even the "enlightened" states of Europe), I'm not taking any chances letting some bureaucrat decide all I can get. I don't give a damn if the streets are safe because of it or not.

edited 4th Apr '11 6:41:40 AM by MajorTom

Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#112: Apr 4th 2011 at 6:45:49 AM

Pretty much everywhere was at one point a tyrannical regime, Tom. I'm not sure that's an argument worth making.

A brighter future for a darker age.
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#113: Apr 4th 2011 at 6:49:15 AM

It is. If they were tyrannical at one point in their history they will do it again even if it's not in our lifetimes.

Humans don't learn from their history. If they have a record of doing one thing before, they will do it again and again.

PiccoloNo92 Since: Apr, 2010
#114: Apr 4th 2011 at 6:50:47 AM

I would say I dislike my government more than I distrust them and that is more just down to a disagreement in values than anything. Wouldn't say I exactly trust them either, I just expect them to do what they do, maybe attempt to infringe on the Human Rights Act now and again, but nothing too unpredictable.

CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#115: Apr 4th 2011 at 6:58:33 AM

There are other methods to defend yourself. A gun is not a necessity to be able to protect yourself.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#116: Apr 4th 2011 at 6:59:57 AM

It is however the best means to defend yourself.

CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#117: Apr 4th 2011 at 7:01:20 AM

Indeed. Because it is very lethal, and quite painful.

Which is why there are so many laws restricting their use.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#118: Apr 4th 2011 at 7:08:08 AM

Problem is, those laws more often than not are unconstitutional in the US. Just because many of them haven't yet been struck down by the Supreme Court doesn't give them the credibility to stand.

Also, self-defense laws are popular in many areas of the South and West. In Colorado, you can legally kill a man if you find your life to be in danger. (Say from a home break in or a mugging on the street.)

edited 4th Apr '11 7:08:50 AM by MajorTom

Exploder Pretending to be human Since: Jan, 2001
Pretending to be human
#119: Apr 4th 2011 at 7:09:55 AM

Gun laws aren't cartoonishly evil, though they can occasionally be cartoonishly stupid and therefore useless.

KCK Can I KCK it? from In your closet Since: Jul, 2010
Can I KCK it?
#120: Apr 4th 2011 at 7:11:09 AM

I see nothing wrong with gun restrictions; some people shouldn't be allowed to have them.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~
Linhasxoc Since: Jun, 2009
#121: Apr 4th 2011 at 7:11:18 AM

[up][up][up]Don't most states have self-defense laws?

Gun laws aren't cartoonishly evil, though they can occasionally be cartoonishly stupid and therefore useless.
This.

edited 4th Apr '11 7:11:33 AM by Linhasxoc

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#122: Apr 4th 2011 at 7:19:56 AM

^ Many do, some don't. For example in California, you can be shot, stabbed 3 times in the belly and left bleeding to death by an attacker and it's illegal to shoot him back. In Colorado, you can fire before he pulls the trigger to begin with.

Linhasxoc Since: Jun, 2009
#123: Apr 4th 2011 at 7:32:36 AM

Well, that's stupid.

I'm not entirely sure on how it works in Wisconsin, but you can kill someone to prevent a felony from occurring. It has to be reasonable, though; if you kill someone when nonlethal force would be feasible or kill someone when there wasn't a felony in progress after all it's 2nd-degree intentional homicide.

CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#124: Apr 4th 2011 at 7:43:51 AM

You can use reasonable force, I believe.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
Kino Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Californicating
#125: Apr 4th 2011 at 8:01:19 AM

Gotta double check with a buddy of mine, but in FL you can shoot somebody if they step onto your property; your neighbor can do it for you in TX.


Total posts: 210
Top