Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Concealed Carry Now Legal in California

Dont think anyone is emotional about it here. I think everyone here from the libertarian camp/military camp is pretty grounded in reality. "Flaming constitutions" look at Ukraine, they just demanded a second amendment provision like we have, wonder why. But its irrational of us to believe something like that would happen here right?

It's extremely irrational to point out that the constitution is fragile, obviously.
it's borderline terrorism... better ship me off to a re-education center..

Thankfully that would never happen,
it would be irrational to think our government would do that to its an American Citizen .

What point are you trying to make? Right now it seems that you're just throwing out random slogans/historical facts and hoping that someone else will connect the dots for you.

I shouldn't have replied since I don't get into these debates anymore, particularly with you guys, but I'll bite this once. I'm not going to argue for either camp here because I don't wholly agree with either side. But as someone who actually agrees with many of the fundamentals of your libertarian position, I want to let you know something.

If you allow the parameters of the debate to be dead kids in the present vs esoteric 18th century political philosophy, you will lose even if you are right.

If you play the whole "cops are bad" and "agents of tyranny" card, you will lose period.

The moment you start posting neckbeard videos about cop killing or 20 minute long videos of a cop arguing with somebody in pajama pants, you have lost. At least scale it up and post G-20 protests or something to make it appear systemic rather than two idiots arguing with each other.

The pro-gun position is a harder one to argue because its punching power is contingent on things that people don't see the merits of on a day to day basis.

You can make the liberty argument, but it's a tough one to be convincing with since it doesn't actually address the points your opposition is making, it just implies that they're less important than curtailing obscure historical events (which is entirely a matter of opinion by the way). It's the kind of argument that works on people with no opinion and people that already agree with you. There are a dozen other arguments you can make to plug the gap in that argument by actually undermining the strength of your opponent's position, but the absolute last fucking thing you want to do is just go "why do you hate freedom?" because it simultaneously admits everything they say and draws a bright dividing line between your position and absolutely anything else that anyone could possibly believe.

Yes I know the liberty argument sounds really unassailable. Yes I know about XYZ historical event. Yes I've seen a thousand Liveleak videos about police brutality, uprisings in foreign countries, dictatorial abuse of power, etc. Most of my friends believe the same thing you do. But if your response the moment you encounter someone who disagrees is to assert that there's something wrong with them for not entirely agreeing with you, well you've gone full Bolshevik on us.

For the record I agree, an armed citizenry is a hedge against tyranny and invasion. I just want you to consider that the way you're arguing it is so ham-handed and melodramatic that you're currently arguing with someone who actually agrees with the fundamental point of your position.

I support libertarians running for office even though I disagree with its underlying assumptions about human behavior because I think it's an influence this country desperately needs, but the last fucking thing you want to do is turn it into a Ron Paul personality cult, a fluoridation conspiracy, or a philosophy of kneejerk suspicion toward government as a concept. That shit didn't even fly in the 18th century much less the 21st, and if you disagree you can go read the Articles of Confederation or the Covenant of the League of Nations followed by a brief summary of why they failed.

Now can we all forget about this annoying college activist and soccer mom shit and go back to planning elite space marine boarding ops in the Star Citizen thread?

I basically agree with everything you just said and wasn't ever really at odds with anything you said. So basically we agree but you needed to clarify for us that arguing on LoD forums, a gaming guild, we were not going to change the world? damnit, i thought i could launch my political career right here.. haha

lol. This thread went to new places since I last visited. This is pretty much exactly how I feel about that video. Especially this: "I disagree with the premise, but I appreciate the sentiment."

That video is pure retard and as Hexen pointed out, when the basis of your argument is what's displayed in that video, you've already lost. He's drawing an identical parallel between fascist regime's (Hitler, Stalin, etc) and US law enforcement. They're not the same at all because as Hexen pointed out, if you're wrongfully arrested here, you have the right to due process, even to the point of filing a civil suit against the government and seeking monetary relief. How can you compare that to what happened to the Jews or things like the Ugandan genocide? There's no parallel to be had there.

I strongly value our civil liberties which is why I am all for the appeals court ruling I listed in the OP. Regardless of my views on gun control, I am happy to see the judiciary branch of the government taking an active role to keep the legislative branch in check.

The entire point of our system of government is checks and balances. Unfortunately, when you're dealing with a country as large as the US with so many cultural, socio-economic, racial, etc divisions, nothing will get done quickly. A law may be passed that is against the constitution. Getting it overturned can take a long time. At least the mechanisms to do so are in place. Just look at civil rights. Not that many decades ago, black people could be lynched because....well...just because.

In any event, I have to say I wouldn't want anyone that thought that video was an accurate narrative of how things are in this country to be carrying a gun around. As Rolo and I discussed in coms after I made this post, responsible weapon owners know that drawing and firing a weapon at a human being in a public place comes with a shit storm. You WILL be taken into custody and most likely charged with homocide or attempted homocide, even if you are eventually cleared by the defense of self-defense. Similarly, anyone that has a police officer draw down on them (even in their own home) should not resist and should fight that battle in court. If for no other reason than common sense. You WILL lose a gunfight with an entire police force. If you don't have enough common sense to know that, you probably shouldn't own a gun period.

Ok I'll try to connect my dots:

The constitution is fragile. The 7th Amendment protects us from round-ups, but it didn't stop the round-up of the Japanese during WW2. It did not end up in their extermination, but it did leave an astounding precedent; the government can suspend parts of the constitution as they see fit.
Assuming the cops don't beat you to death (not to say they all would), that's a protection that we take for granted because of the 7th amendment, did you know that the US can hold a terrorist indefinitely? How hard would it be to label a group of people as terrorists, the Branch Davidians come to mind.

The video asks the question, 'when is it ok to shoot a cop?' Is the answer really 'never?' I whole-heartedly disagree that it's never ok to kill a cop, as much as I whole-heartedly disagree that it's never ok to kill an American Soldier. If our freedoms are in jeopardy I hope Americans will have the courage to stand together as the Ukrainians did and fight or die as free men. I hope it can be solved diplomatically instead of violently, but if the government crosses the threshold of acceptable malleability of the constitution and into tyranny then we'll have no other choice.

Plus I think it's healthy to think about this kind of stuff, at what point is this threshold? It's good to think about it or else people will wake up one day and wonder what happened.

In all seriousness I agree with what you're saying Teriya I just don't think a gaming guild's forum is the venue for this discussion.

I think referencing the Branch Davidians is a poor support to your argument. In fact, I think it strengthens what I said. Let's look at the facts of what happened.

The ATF was attempting to execute a search warrant obtained on the basis that these people possessed firearms and/or explosives that they were prohibited from having by federal law. I'm going to operate on the wild assumption that a federal judge (or other proper legal authority)issued a search warrant based on probable cause that they were breaking the fucking law.

Any reasonable individual who was not breaking the law would have consented to the search. In the event that the police found nothing and they felt their civil liberties had been infringed, they could have contacted an attorney and attempted to litigate the matter to their hearts' content.

Instead, they engaged in a military standoff with a law enforcement agency and guess what? They lost. Like I said, common sense if nothing else should urge you not to engage in a military standoff with law enforcement.

When is it okay to shoot a cop? I will tell you when. When you're not breaking the law and you reasonably believe that your life is in jeopardy if you do not kill him first. If police execute an entry into my home, legal or illegally, and attempt to take me into custody, I'm simply going to cooperate. Why? Well for one because I don't think my belief that an entry into my home is unlawful is a good enough reason to kill another human being. For two, I kinda like living and I'd rather fight for my beliefs in the courtroom and not get zerged by police with better weaponry.

Now if the cops showed up at my house for no good reason and started shooting, yea, I'm gonna shoot back because I would have no other alternative if I wanted to attempt to survive.

Similarly, if as in the Ukraine, I chose to stand up to my government through my right to assemble and the government agents used force against me then yea, I believe I would have "the right" to fight back. Even then though, it would be a pretty foolish option. You'd be better off trying to send your message through legal non-violent protest. Violence only begets violence.

When Sonya says connect the dots what I believe he's saying is that your random assortment of ideas don't seem to have any meaningful correlation. For example, police officers entering a home on an allegedly illegal basis is not comparable to "tyranny" as that term is used when describing fascist regimes from prior points in history such as Hitler and Stalin, nor are either of these events valid substance for the argument that the "constitution is fragile" which is supported by your reference to Japanese-American detainment that happened 60+ years ago.... On that point, I would tell that one guy to learn the law a little better. If a law enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe that someone inside a home is in immediate danger (like domestic violence for example), he can absolutely enter your home without a warrant on that premise.

If the cops busted into my place I'd take reasonable care to make sure that they weren't actually strippers. If they were not strippers, I would yell "1v1?" "1v1 bro?" and "lol zerg" until they dueled me or left in shame.