Does it count if you were never a dictatorship (or had a tyrannical regime) after you became independent for the first time? If so, I'd like to point at Finland and Iceland, as well as probably Cyprus and Malta. I'd also argue that the last time Finland was under a Tyrannical regime was during Swedish rule - the 1700s or so. Iceland has to my knowledge never had a tyrannical regime after the Vikings settled it.
If you count being concuered as "tyrannical regime", does it count if there were no restrictions on weapon ownership?
edited 4th Apr '11 10:59:59 AM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.I probably agree with your basic point, but Finland was sort of taken over by Nazi Germany, which undoubtedly counts as tyrannical and it wouldn't surprise me if they tried to confiscate people's guns.
That being said, IMO, confiscating guns is a symptom of tyrannical regimes more so than tyranical in itself.
Hodor^
This.
California treats it a little differently. You can use force to defend your own life, but they frown on using force to eject someone from your home who is trespassing or is stealing something.
No, I'm not going to just stand there and let some asshole carry my TV out just because he isn't trying to hurt me. The most he's getting is a "DROP THE TV AND RAISE YOUR HANDS!" and make a citizens arrest.
If he runs, I won't shoot him unless he has some of my stuff, then he's getting shot. One less dude out there stealing peoples stuff. I could give a fuck if he has some sob story.
And I'd try to avoid killing him, except that I would be worse off if I left him alive in California than if I just killed him outright and claimed self-defense. Make it so you can't get sued for harming a burglar and I'd make the attempt to only maim him instead.
edited 4th Apr '11 11:21:15 AM by Barkey
No we weren't.
When we lost some parts of our country in the Winter War, during the interim peace, we made a deal to let some German forces enter the Northern half of our country to defend us if the Soviets invade again, and in return we agreed to counter-attack beyond our old borders to help Operation Barbarossa if it ever happened (which, at that point, wan't considered certain in Finland). When the Soviets DID invade, the Germans helped defend us, but we were never officially allied because of diplomatic trickery on our part.
Then, when we lost to the Soviets, we had to sign a deal to drive the Germans out, which we did, though we pretty much warned them in advance and let them escape 'cause they defended us against the Soviets.
There was never a time when Nazis ruled in Finland, and no Nazi forces ever even entered Helsinki aside from diplomatic delegations as far as I know. The only area where we fought the Germans was Lapland, which was the area they had previously defended. They burned the towns and cities down to make chasing them harder, but we don't hate them for it; we did betray them, even if we were forced to by the Soviets.
edited 4th Apr '11 11:49:34 AM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Ok here's the thing about Licisning in the US in general it's needlessly resterictive and the only reason it existed in the first place (especially gun licisning and marrige liscinsing) is to stop now "free" black citizens from getting a gun or marrying a white woman. Then that got passed on to everyone isntead of being eliminated entierly.
We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?When I was a wee lass, to be exact. For some reason I thought police officers were evil, and they're technically employed by the government, so yeah.
I don't hate cops anymore, but I never did like the idea of one human having control over another. I felt that people couldn't be trusted to reliably use that kind of power.
For the most part, I still do.
Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.It doesn't for me. An armed society is a polite society. I know this because more than a few of my neighbors have firearms and they are all good people.
T He original source I got from that will be ard to find without listing through the whole lecture again but i'll do my best to find an adiquit source for you (Thanke inane for the advice)
http://www.libertarian-logic.com/concealed-weapons-permit.html
This one isn't so much a source as an argument but I can get the You Tube Video I got the source from. it's an eight hour lecture but it's certainly worth the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nOMbfsgZ9s
43 part lecture but certianly worth the time IMO.
We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?
And I'm fine with them not letting people who've spent time in a mental hospital have them, because around here, you have to prove that you're a danger to yourself or others to even get a chance at being committed.
edited 4th Apr '11 1:48:17 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianWould mandatory membership of the NRA, on the understanding that the organisation will provide training and education, be a reasonable means of gun control?
(Keep in mind that I'm asking as a non-American who has next to no knowledge about the National Rifle Association, its practices and demographics).
And the government mandating joining a private organization in general is egh.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.I suppose so. Bad suggestion, then.
I don't really understand the whole gun debate, to be honest. Seems like a tangled knot to me. Here's how I see it; if there's no specific prohibition on a firearm then there's not really any legal basis for objecting to people owning one. At the same time, the state needs to maintain a certain advantage if it is to fulfill its obligations to maintain law and order and they choose to do this by making certain types of weapons illegal for private citizens. For that to happen they need to pass a law which restricts the circulation of these proscribed devices.
However, that's where the American constitution comes in, and that's where things get really complicated. From there on out, the outcome of the debate will rely on how much the government trusts its citizens. However, if the citizens don't trust the government, there's no guarantee that the government will be willing to trust them in turn.
Probably an overly simplified assessment of the dispute. I suppose the codified nature of the American constitution has it has it's advantages, but I think it has the potential to creates as many problems as it solves.

@Kino: That would be the Castle Doctrine. Washington state has both that and the Stand Your Ground laws, and it's a pretty liberal hippie state. Most states have laws that authorize lethal force if necessary to defend yourself. There's only a handful that don't.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian