4588686 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 It is almost as if the intention and circumstances of a situation have to be evaluated right along with the moral object. :proud: Well played. Well played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 22, 2013 Author Share Posted January 22, 2013 Props. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Almost everybody asides from a few on the right, agree that what was done to Japanese Americans was awful. It's not a controversial position. Yes, people do claim it was terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 It does make me wonder though, why people continue to scoff at concerns like Nihil is raising. Typically it is in context to the 2nd amendment, but still. There are many people still alive today that remember this happening here and other terrible abuses over the last century, and other countries continue to see the same things happen in modern times. Are we delusional enough to think that our grandparents were just gullible fools? that these things are impossible, or will never happen here again because of ____? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 Anytime somebody says "but this time is different", that claim needs to be investigated very thoroughly. It is often wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 In retrospect, This internment is nothing really, that is compared to nagasaki bombing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) It does make me wonder though, why people continue to scoff at concerns like Nihil is raising. Typically it is in context to the 2nd amendment, but still. There are many people still alive today that remember this happening here and other terrible abuses over the last century, and other countries continue to see the same things happen in modern times. Are we delusional enough to think that our grandparents were just gullible fools? that these things are impossible, or will never happen here again because of ____? It could happen here. But you having an AR-15 is not going to stand up to a team of Navy SEALs fresh off Arghanistan or North Africa. People in Afghanistan have a lot of guns and a whole lot more combat experience than you or anyone on this board will ever have and that's bought them a protracted war with lopsided causalities and political and economic collapse. It's just romanticism to suggest that letting people have AR-15s is some serious check on government power. Edited January 23, 2013 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I know several SEALS, and they didn't get into the program to fire on American citizens in the name of Dear Leader's agenda. I know and work with a lot of combat veterans, and generally, they think the gun bans are asinine, illegitimate commands. The glorified mall cops in the ATF don't represent the attitude of the soldiers I know. Although I'd expect many to follow the order to murder/assault/kidnap citizens. Taking cities is hard, even against irregulars. It's dirty, expensive, and bloody. It's far cheaper and easier to deal with a disarmed public, and the political class loves cheap and easy. Like it or not, an armed citizenry is a deterrent to a tyrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I know several SEALS, and they didn't get into the program to fire on American citizens in the name of Dear Leader's agenda. I know and work with a lot of combat veterans, and generally, they think the gun bans are asinine, illegitimate commands. The glorified mall cops in the ATF don't represent the attitude of the soldiers I know. Although I'd expect many to follow the order to murder/assault/kidnap citizens. Taking cities is hard, even against irregulars. It's dirty, expensive, and bloody. It's far cheaper and easier to deal with a disarmed public, and the political class loves cheap and easy. And very few men joined the JNA to rape Bosnian women. Very few soldiers joined the American army to invade Virginia or burn down Atlanta. It's funny how security spirals work and how conflict multiplies. Like it or not, an armed citizenry is a deterrent to a tyrant. It's also a great way to hype up supposed threats and justify the use of force in the first place. Egyptians used minimal physical force and resistance to Mubarak. Compare that to Syria. Lot's of people have guns there. Real assault rifles too. It's weird that Assad doesn't realize what an effective deterrent that is to tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 And very few men joined the JNA to rape Bosnian women. Very few soldiers joined the American army to invade Virginia or burn down Atlanta. It's funny how security spirals work and how conflict multiplies. It's also a great way to hype up supposed threats and justify the use of force in the first place. Egyptians used minimal physical force and resistance to Mubarak. Compare that to Syria. Lot's of people have guns there. Real assault rifles too. It's weird that Assad doesn't realize what an effective deterrent that is to tyranny. You're confusing my anecdotal experience with your third hand information and assumptions. "Deterrent" does not mean what you think it means. A lock is a deterrent to a thief. But thieves will kick in doors, sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 In retrospect, This internment is nothing really, that is compared to nagasaki bombing The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the firebombings of Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe, Berlin, etc., were shockingly evil. But that does not reduce the fact that interning innocent people because of where their families come from is simply inexcusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 You're confusing my anecdotal experience with your third hand information and assumptions. "Deterrent" does not mean what you think it means. A lock is a deterrent to a thief. But thieves will kick in doors, sometimes. It doesn't seem to be a very good deterrent since most state-corporate systems have found pretty effective means of controlling their populations without armed conflict and those thuggish and unsophisticated enough to require outright fighting don't seem too bothered with high body counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 It could happen here. But you having an AR-15 is not going to stand up to a team of Navy SEALs fresh off Arghanistan or North Africa. People in Afghanistan have a lot of guns and a whole lot more combat experience than you or anyone on this board will ever have and that's bought them a protracted war with lopsided causalities and political and economic collapse. It's just romanticism to suggest that letting people have AR-15s is some serious check on government power. And my motorcycle helmet isnt gonna save me if I get run over by a semi truck. But I would rather have one anyways for the amount of good it can do, than just see it as hopeless and go without. Similarly, I would rather have a gun, a nice gun, if bullets ever started flying near me, and I think you would too, to be honest. One can always choose not to use a gun when you have one. Its pretty hard to decide to use one when you are unarmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 And my motorcycle helmet isnt gonna save me if I get run over by a semi truck. But I would rather have one anyways for the amount of good it can do, than just see it as hopeless and go without. Similarly, I would rather have a gun, a nice gun, if bullets ever started flying near me, and I think you would too, to be honest. One can always choose not to use a gun when you have one. Its pretty hard to decide to use one when you are unarmed. Good philosophy for life, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 And my motorcycle helmet isnt gonna save me if I get run over by a semi truck. But I would rather have one anyways for the amount of good it can do, than just see it as hopeless and go without. Similarly, I would rather have a gun, a nice gun, if bullets ever started flying near me, and I think you would too, to be honest. One can always choose not to use a gun when you have one. Its pretty hard to decide to use one when you are unarmed. Sure. Guns can make you feel safe. I can think of plenty of instances where I would have felt much safer if I had been armed and a few where I actually would have been much safer had I been armed. But again we are back to feelings. In the highly unlikely event that you are in a state of armed revolt against the Canadian government having a gun will make you feel safer. And on that basis mild gun control laws that could save thousands of lives cannot be passed. That strikes me as selfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now