Reply to Sad when the Onion is this right

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Sad when the Onion is this right"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Pp - you are still underestimating the issue.  As to popular discontent, have you forgotten the American Revolution? Civil War?  Or how about more recent examples like Libya, Syria, Ukraine, or all the revolutions of 1989?

Yet you smugly assume the US cavalry will ride to your rescue or that bad things could never, ever, possibly happen here?  (Sorry if I don't share your unwarranted confidence).

And I guess you haven't seen headlines like these?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/voters-california-contemplate-forming-state-23899885

I am not saying our country faces collapse any time soon.  I am, however, saying that history is filled with regimes that people assumed would never fall.  Explain what makes us so immune to failure in your mind.
[/quote]

The abcnews.com article you mention talks about people wanting to form a new state, not a new country, because they feel like their issues aren't being appropriately represented at the state government level. Given the size of California, splitting it into multiple states wouldn't actually be unreasonable, but for the fact that the Federal government wouldn't permit it except as part of a larger deal related to the admission of DC, Puerto Rico, etc., so that the balance of power at the Federal level remained the same.

The difference between the American Revolution and Civil War and the modern area is the resources of the military, among other things.

In the American Revolution, the British were fighting against a force that out numbered them, was using unconventional tactics that the British did not train to deal with, was similarly armed as the British (i.e., the same level of weaponry, no armor and no issues with air power), and the Brits were at the end of a very long, slow, expensive supply chain. In the modern era, the military and police have access to air power, are not at the end of a long, expensive supply chain (and, in fact, have very well-developed supply chains and logistics structures), regularly train to deal with unconventional tactics, have intelligence capabilities far beyond those available to the Brits at the time or most civilians today and have access to levels of weaponry not available to civilians.

In the Civil War, while there was a lot of bloodshed, the side that didn't control the logistics and industrial production lost. Again, the weaponry was roughly equal, and the South enjoyed support of their own citizenry - not something that would be guaranteed for your would-be patriots. The discrepancies in armament, air power, logistics, training, intelligence and other force multipliers would more than make up for the unconventional tactics of the so-called patriots.

There's no guarantee that the US won't go through some level of Balkanization, but odds are against it any time in the near future. In general, the world is moving towards more coordinated government rather than Balkanization because it's simply more economically efficient.

But the real question is, given how unlikely that scenario is, how should we balance that remote risk and the benefit that might be provided by having an armed populace against the very real harms that our lax gun laws cause to our current society? There are plenty of anecdotal cases where having a gun helped someone, and guns are very real tools for those who live in areas where they have to be ready to deal with wildlife. Then there are people who do target shooting and hunters, all of whom get a benefit from access to guns.

Then there is the very real cost of access to guns, and any regulation should be designed to maximize the reduction in that cost, while minimizing the  interference with the benefits described above.

Things like licensing (we force people to get a license to operate a car), gun-fingerprinting (we force people to register their cars and each car has a unique license plate and serial number), mandatory insurance (we require everyone to have insurance for cars), mandatory safety systems like trigger locks, biometric locks, etc. (we require cars to have seat belts and air bags, and we ticket people who don't wear seat belts), and penalties for having a gun in places where it's inappropriate, e.g., around schools, bars, etc. (there are places where you could drive but aren't allowed to) and insurance discounts for training (just like drivers ed) and higher cost insurance for models that are considered risker (you pay higher insurance for a sportscar than you do for a family sedan) would not adversely impact those who want to use guns for legitimate purposes.

In the same vein, background checks and delays on receipt would also not inappropriately adversely impact those who want to use guns for legitimate purposes, not even the preppers who are anticipating the type of societal breakdowns you've mentioned.

The problem is that every reasonable step is resisted with the full force of the NRA on the grounds that any such regulation is the first step towards confiscation, and that's simply an unreasonable position.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics