Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Why can’t we just treat getting a gun license like getting a drivers license again?
Edited by megaeliz on Jul 4th 2019 at 12:43:26 PM
I remain unconvinced by the argument that civilians with guns can effectively resist the US government. There’s these things called tear gas, military vehicles, tasers, rubber bullets, etc. Not to mention better gear and training and guns. And that’s just the militarization of local police, let alone the firepower the actual military has.
And y’know, arguing that we may need to shoot/kill cops and soldiers never goes over well.
![]()
![]()
The Nazi government didn't change 'quickly' though. They boiled the frog slowly. By the time you'd use the guns, it would be too late, and a bunch of militia bros aren't going to stop an army group, other than to stage a heroic last stand.
Here's a good video on the subject.
Edited by GoldenKaos on Jul 4th 2019 at 5:39:52 PM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."![]()
It's like cults. They don't go straight into the Thetans or the Cyanide Flavorade or the President Donald Trumps. Everything builds up slowly enough that the person either never realizes just how absurd and/or horrible everything has become or they do and they can't bring themselves to question it because to question things at that point is to question every single decision you've ever made since joining in.
Part of the reason this comparison hits me here is because I've been relisting to The Last Podcast on the Left series on Jonestown and early on they mention that there was a very high suicide rate in Germany following World War II, and they specifically note this wasn't high ups trying to get out of consequences for their actions but regular people unable to cope with the idea that their way of life was so wrong.
Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 4th 2019 at 10:48:06 AM
@Soban A professional military is generally far superior to a group of militias. While it's true that they can win, it usually requires special circumstances, such as home-field advantage and the life-dinner principle (the defender having a far higher stake in a war than the attacker, causing the attacker to be willing to admit defeat). This is how the US lost Vietnam: America didn't know how to fight in that terrain, and didn't have much stake in the war (winning it would have cost more than losing it).
If an actual, homegrown militia rose against the US, the US would be fighting where it's strongest, and would have motive to spend all available resources to fight it.
Leviticus 19:34As they say, if you are militia or using guerilla warfare, all you have to do is not lose definitely. Whoever you fight against, has to win, preferably quickly, and worry about public perception. Put another way, "make it impossible to justify the cost of the fight."
You know, "guns could have prevented the Holocaust" always seemed to be designed purely as a "gotcha" argument to shut up gun control advocates.
Why? Because it tries to implicitly portray gun control advocates as being opposed to Jews defending themselves instead of, you know, them pointing out that guns wouldn't have actually changed anything.
It's basically an attempt to discredit the other side via veiled accusations of antisemitism.
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyIsn’t this an argument in favor of Democrats protecting gun rights?
On the topic of militias, I’ll point out that even domestic insurgencies are very hard to root out. I should say that I don’t think it’ll ever get to the point of an insurgency in the US, but the arguments that we need guns to withstand the government and that guns could never withstand the government are both equally useless.
They should have sent a poet.I would argue that advocating for responsible, registered gun ownership is protecting gun rights. This narrative where having to register your firearms is the first step to the government detonating tiny shaped charges inside them to render them useless, or a prelude to raiding homes and stealing all their weapons, is one of the most insidious notions ever introduced into the discussion.
It's been fun.To be fair, some of this also depends on circumstances and what the goal of the militia was. For example, let's say the US became The Empire and declared war on Canada. The purpose of the revolutionaries would be less to defeat the government so much as draw resources away from it to make it easier for Canada to invade it.
Leviticus 19:34Foreign occupation, the US government always had the option of withdrawing. A domestic insurrection, on the other hand, would offer the government a home-field advantage while also forcing them to entirely commit to fighting it.
Ergo, comparing the two is apples to oranges and in no way supports your argument.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 4th 2019 at 10:05:36 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Agreed, and I think that’s a point Democratic politicians don’t communicate well. A large portion of gun owners could be brought into the big tent if only Democrats knew how to reach out to them.
Edit: didn’t see the mod note
Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 4th 2019 at 10:19:46 AM
They should have sent a poet.Looks like the "Salute to Trump's ego America" is at least being delayed due to weather concerns. Namely rain and fears of lightning strikes.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-washington-dc-july-4-2019/index.html
Did Trump anger Zeus somehow?
'I don't have to atone': Biden dismisses busing controversy
INDEPENDENCE, Iowa — Joe Biden on Thursday dismissed the school busing controversy between him and Kamala Harris as a dated issue that “99 percent” of Americans are unfamiliar with, while asserting he is still “way ahead” in the Democratic presidential campaign.
Describing himself as an “overwhelming supporter of civil rights and civil liberties,” he said, “My record stands for itself.”
“I don’t have to atone,” Biden told reporters after darting through an Independence Day parade in Iowa.
When asked if Harris’ view of busing now was similar to the position she challenged him for holding decades ago, Biden said, “Look, she’s a good person, she is smart as can be, and she feels strongly.”
He said Harris’ criticism “came out of nowhere” and “didn’t seem to be something at all consistent with anything I’d been accused of before.”
Then, he said, “We need to talk about the future … Busing is something that 99 percent of the American people don’t even know what we’re talking about here.”
“I’m not going to go back and talk about the record of anyone from 10, 20, 30 years ago,” Biden said. “There’s a lot out there that a lot of people would like to do differently than they did. But everything is lost in context, as well. The context of the time is something that the vast majority of people don’t know from 25 or 30 years ago. And so, you can easily distort it, particularly in 60 seconds if you have 30 seconds to respond.”
He said Democrats should focus on their current proposals to address education, health care and “a whole range of other things.”
“Let’s move on and talk about what do we do now,” he said.

>So your argument is that gun ownership must be protected by law so that minorities can protect themselves... from the people who are responsible for upholding the law.
Among others, yes. The government is one of many threats to our liberties. I'm not saying it's always a threat, but history has shown that it can be. Even if the police were fixed, it is possible for them to get broken again in a few hundred years.
>Good Guy With a Gun narrative
The idea of the 'good guy with a gun' is that a good guy will shoot a bad guy if they can generally in a mass shooting situation. However, that's not the point I was making. The point is that even if a Gun doesn't have to be used, it can still be an effective deterrent to bad behavior by both governmental and non-governmental actors. As was shown by the historical examples that I used.
>This feels dangerously close to the "the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if the populace was armed" narrative that people like Ben Carson and Ben Shapiro were espousing not too long ago.
Perhaps, but my point of the section here is that government can change surprisingly quickly in horrifying ways with huge stakes if they do. Even if not needed now, they may be needed later.
>The same reason a bicycle can't pull a passenger train: that's not what they were made to do.
??? are we talking about the same thing?
>And you think the current administration won't leap over chairs and desks to suppress them should they get really active?
Oh certainly, but that's why we need to keep the right strong rather then weakening it.
Edited by Soban on Jul 4th 2019 at 12:28:12 PM