McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

Euler · 2005-02-02 18:17:03

If plasma cannons become effective, reasonably affordable, and easily obtainable, then I think that criminals will start using them too. If chemical, biological, or tactical nuclear weapons were cheap and legal, I think that you would see some criminals using them as well. Should they be allowed to? I think that you have to set limits somewhere.

In any case, a group of people armed with semi-automatic pistols is not going to be able to defeat a modern military. I don't think that the "we need guns so we can start an insurrection if necessary" argument is very credible in the current era.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 18:46:21

If plasma cannons become effective, reasonably affordable, and easily obtainable, then I think that criminals will start using them too. If chemical, biological, or tactical nuclear weapons were cheap and legal, I think that you would see some criminals using them as well. Should they be allowed to? I think that you have to set limits somewhere.

Are we talking about criminals or terrorists? People that want to rob a 7-11 aren't the same as people that want to kill their ex-wife aren't the same as people who want to kill as many people as possible.

The third type will use the most destructive weapon they can get, most likely not some form of personal small arms. The other two will probably use a handgun for the reasons stated previously, as will anyone who tries to thwart the crime. No one is going to walk into the Stop-n-Rob with a plasma cannon and to base a twisted interpretation of the Constitution on fear of non-existent technology is a bit silly anyway. :;):

If citizens can have guns, many crimes will be thwarted. If they can't, criminals get them anyway (making one isn't hard) and crime is encouraged by a wide choice of easy targets.

But if it's just a question of where the line should be drawn on what is acceptable, I would say anything that can't effectively be used in a defensive manner at close range is out. Handguns are okay, hand grenades are not. There's a few exceptions, such as a shotgun is good for home use but poor for street, but it's a good general guideline.

In any case, a group of people armed with semi-automatic pistols is not going to be able to defeat a modern military. I don't think that the "we need guns so we can start an insurrection if necessary" argument is very credible in the current era.

At the time civilian and military arms were the same so the balance is different now but the basic principle of citizens having the means to resist government tyranny is still intact. An armed population, even if outmatched man-for-man by organized military forces is still a powerful force against tyranny in it's own right.

But then the point is to make sure you never get to the point of having an armed conflict.

Yet even if that idea is totally discarded all the previous reasons remain.

I break it down like this. Feel free to dispute any point with explanation of how.

Can you prevent all crime: No.

Can police protect all citizens at all times: No

Is it prudent to make efforts to keep violent criminals from acquiring weapons: Yes.

Can all weapons be kept out of criminal hands: No

Is there any reason to believe that citizens can effectively defend themselves with proper equipment and training: Yes. Handguns have been shown to succesfully thwart criminal intent, often by merely brandishing the weapon. Further, extensive training is not required for average people to successfully use a firearm in self-defense as demonstrated by numerous real-life cases.

Is their any reason citizens should not be allowed to defend themselves: No

Seems like armed citizens protecting themselves with police as a semi-reliable backup is the best we're gonna get. If someone attacks you and the cops aren't there, your choices are use appropriate force in return or take the hit and hope to live. Easy choice from where I'm sitting.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 18:51:29

Also, I'll take this opportunity to apologize to Cindy for being a party to this particular hijacking. We should endeavor to get back on some semblance of the topic rather than fighting old battles again.

Palomar · 2005-02-02 19:29:26

Also, I'll take this opportunity to apologize to Cindy for being a party to this particular hijacking. We should endeavor to get back on some semblance of the topic rather than fighting old battles again.

*Thank you for the sentiment, Cobra; but no need to apologize. Political topics can become intertwined.

At this point I'm not sure how much more pertaining to McCarthyism I myself can contribute, other than what I have already.

Of course it'd be nice if the topic stayed somewhat on track with the reason for which it was created (is a similar social circumstance looming?), but other political issues arising is somewhat inevitable. And it could all (or somewhat) lead back to the original purpose...who knows?

--Cindy

ERRORIST · 2005-02-02 19:37:58

I agree. Now what was that about Michigan again?

clark · 2005-02-03 07:27:20

Round up the homo-sexuals, they are undermining our society and way of life from within. First they want to study male homo-sexual culture in a class setting, next thing you know, they'll give Korea and Vietnam to the Pinko chinese (they do use the color pink as one their symbols).

dicktice · 2005-02-04 08:17:11

Clarke: Now that's more like it: "Give me that good old fashioned McCarthyism, 'cause it's good enough for me!" (I sure hope you're kidding, though, because I lived through all that Us-versus-Them baloney, when it was really dangerous. Now, anyone subscribing to it merely looks foolish.)

Grypd · 2005-02-04 20:08:36

Heh sorry to go slightly off topic.

Not as if it hasnt happened before ???

Studying the United states constitution and its history in particular the civil war. Was it not constitutionally right for the southern states to decry that the states where the main backer of law and there rights where the priority in the constitution. And that a Civil militia was what was due to back up a states rule rather than a federal appointed body.

Of course I could be well out of base but then again im not from the USA and would like an answer to a question that puzzles me.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-07 15:23:20

Studying the United states constitution and its history in particular the civil war. Was it not constitutionally right for the southern states to decry that the states where the main backer of law and there rights where the priority in the constitution. And that a Civil militia was what was due to back up a states rule rather than a federal appointed body.

Ooh, a meaty question. Standard Cobra disclaimer applies:

From a strictly legal perspective I would have to agree that the federal government acted illegally. There's a certain irony to it, the Confederacy believed themselves to be fighting for freedom while at the same time upholding slavery. The Federal forces fought to preserve the Union against the Consitution on which it rests. In the process numerous other violations were enacted, among them income tax and after the war, federal citizenship rather than the state citizenship that had existed previously. Depending on how one chooses to interpret history, the vast majority of the American people could be said to have citizenship status originally created for freed slaves that no state would have.

The Confederacy was essentially engaged in a second revolution, a war of independence very much in line with the spirit of the first. The Union to some degree undermined the very things it was presumably fighting for.

At any rate it's a very grey issue, trading one set of compromises for another. I'm inclined to believe that a preserved Union was the lesser evil, but we can never really know. In some ways the Confederacy remained truer to the principles of the Consitution, yet in others it blatantly contradicted it.

Grypd · 2005-02-07 18:31:53

Thanks Cobra,
It was my view as well but I was interested in seeing what sort of reactions we got from the various Mars society members. There is a lot of personal perspective in this situation and it is interesting in that it does bear a real similarity in the current world situation where though illegal actions have been taken that are decried in the best interests of the world.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-07-06 17:01:54

The East of Europe, Putin the crazy imperialist murdering invader

an uncertain political climate in the US

Chechen parliament speaker Magomed Daudov says that first and foremost, Chechen battalions in Ukraine are fighting a jihad to defend Islam.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/stat … 6082109445
Daudov says that unless Putin stops them, they will keep going until they reach Berlin

maybe in Europe a new Pope of War, a God-Emperor will be born?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-02-02 18:17:03

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#77 2005-02-02 18:46:21

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#78 2005-02-02 18:51:29

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#79 2005-02-02 19:29:26

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#80 2005-02-02 19:37:58

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#81 2005-02-03 07:27:20

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#82 2005-02-04 08:17:11

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#83 2005-02-04 20:08:36

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#84 2005-02-07 15:23:20

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#85 2005-02-07 18:31:53

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#86 2022-07-06 17:01:54

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

Board footer