Guns, Guns Guns

PeterZ wrote:Daryl,

No one can stop oligarchs from arising. There will always be those that are better at gaining wealth and influence no matter the economic or political system.

It is easier to gain wealth in the US. It follows there are a higher percentage of uber wealty here. That means the wealth controlled by our oligarchs are spread over a larger percentage of the population. In most other countries there are fewer wealthy outliers. That suggests to me that control of those nations lie in a smaller set of hands the is true for the US.

Our focus on liberty, then, has increased our representation in our halls of power and influence. This is true even in representation in our oligarchs. I would say the "guns" contribute nicely.

That´s just insanely twisted thinking.

First of all, no it´s harder to gain wealth in the USA, unless you also STARTED with wealth.
And no, there´s not so much a larger percentage of "uber-wealthy", but rather the most wealthy are even more wealthy than elsewhere.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Uses other measurements than i did above, but heck, it shows off pretty obviously anyway ( and is more detailed and separates things out).

What focus on liberty by the way? That´s just rubbish as most mature industrial nations of today are relatively similar in freedoms and rights. A bit more here, a bit less there, it´s not really worth the effort to try to figure out which country has more or less in detail.


Anyway, do you really think that even more extreme concentration of wealth gives ANYTHING back to you? Don´t make me laugh.

Daryl wrote:One quick pointer is that I'm not British as a look to the left would show. Mind you only 12,000kms out.

1) sorry - I’m new the forum & didn’t notice that feature.

Daryl wrote:The idea of not having a King was common to many countries long before the US existed, and is not crazy.

not really – yes some others have tried it but the ingrained social need for a “leader” was never quite bread out, which is why they generally fell back into the status quo. (The Greek & Alexander, the Romans & Cesar the French & Napoleon even the English and Cromwell) the U.S. is the “great experiment” as it is first nation to be without a King/Dictator/Ruler from the outset & with the people ruling themselves.

Daryl wrote:As I pointed out it hasn't worked so far in the US, in that by any impartial analysis the US is further along the path to oligarch control than most.

As I pointed out it has – and this whole “oligarch” myth is socialist propaganda to justify forcing socialist programs down our throat. A lot of the so-called “oligarch” are in-fact the very liberals who are pushing this agenda (like the Kennedys) but of course they point to the other rich politicians and claim it’s them while making laws to restrict freedom.

Daryl wrote:Regarding "the liberal socialists are so adamant about taking them – they can’t turn us into a socialist dictatorship while we have them", I wouldn't regard myself as a liberal socialist, however I'd agree that I and most educated people in the developed world would hold views that you would call "liberal socialist"…

And that wasn’t directed at you – it was directed at American liberal socialists. As were the other comments regarding the 1st & 2nd amendment. They don’t currently apply to you, as nether do the comments.

Daryl wrote:Regarding a "placeholder" interim dictator I can assure you that we don't regard Liz as having any political significance at all. Good for UK tourism & the blue rinse set magazines.

that was my point – but as the point: for someone not of “Royal Blood“ to declare themselves Ruler of England they would have to depose the entire current system as the Royal Family hold the traditional title for an English “ruler-for-life”. Within the current system. Or they would have to come from within that family itself & restore the former power of the monarchy.

Daryl wrote:One final minor point…grammar Nazi, …between through, thorough, and threw…

. Yes well sorry but I’m a statistics & history major not an English major. + it’s 2-4 am here when I’ve posted most of these (& I always seem get those particular homonym mixed up). So forgive my occasional use of the wrong homonym once in a while.

Donnachaidh wrote:…To all of the non-US people, I'm sorry…

As a free American I rescind your apology – I don’t need you apologizing for me. As I stated that was directed at American socialists (like you I presume).

Tenshinai wrote:…your prejudices…

actually I’m not prejudice. I don’t automatically believe the socialist propaganda that has been spread (apparently) across most of the world by the communists. “…but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism…”

Tenshinai wrote:
I´m sorry, say what?
The gun legislation of 1938, lowered the minimum age for gun permits, extended the period for permits from 1 to 3 years and limited the need for permits to handguns.
NSDAP people automatically got excluded and jews were totally banned from weapons or anything like it.
The previous legislation from 1928 made it possible to have guns at all, as there was a total ban from 1919.
Got any more lies?

Yes this one you just made – as you, yourself, point out “

Tenshinai wrote:NSDAP people automatically got excluded and jews were totally banned from weapons or anything like it.

”. Yes they put guns in the hand of nice little Arian NAZI boys. How else were they going to go out and hunt unarmed Jews? Ever heard of “the night of broken glass”. “gun control works great, as long as you’re the one who controls the guns”!

Tenshinai wrote:Delusional. Political power can come in many forms, and the people of USA having access to guns or not doesn´t really matter at all.

Wrong – as you yourself just said “

Tenshinai wrote: Because there always seems to be more people willing to follow orders, and people with guns can never fight against an actual military.

” that the political power coming from where??? The GUN (last I saw the military had guns)

Tenshinai wrote: people with guns can never fight against an actual military.

And this is also wrong – ask the Brits. – or Santa Ana, Texans have done it twice!

Tenshinai wrote: And as i´ve said before, your right is to have a militia. And that right exists since the original intent of the USA was to not have an army, at all.

No it wasn’t! have you read the document? This is a falsehood propigated by the anti-gun groups in America. The document clearly states “the right of the PEOPLE” not the “States”

Tenshinai wrote: Quite so. Your freedom of not being conquered by an outside invasion force.

or internal insurrection! This was in the wake of the Shays' Rebellion, an attempted insurrection of the Massachusetts state government.

MAD-4A wrote:You & ½ a billion other free Americans can grab your guns

oops - typo suppose to been 1/3

Tenshinai wrote: So, why is USA so heavy on cronyism NOW then?

All governments are – if you think otherwise you know nothing – power corrupts – that why putting all the power (& guns) in the hands of an inherently corrupt (regardless of nationality) body is wrong! Until someone can actually figure out how to form an incorruptible government.

Tenshinai wrote: Naive... If you go marching with weapons, then regardless if you´re right or wrong, the government has not just a reason, but even an obligation to stop you, and unless they´re being totally obvious about it, the military will still follow orders and you either run home or get killed.

It’s happened, In most countries your right. But in America were raised as free thinkers & almost all American soldiers are like me. We joined because we believe in our country and our freedom. So it’ll take a lot more socialist brain-washing to wash that away. If it’s a case of a real insurrection, where the president (whoever at the time) or another political leader, tries to through out the Constitution and declare himself dictator (whatever term he uses for it). Most (if not all) of the military will likely fall in with the marching crowd. But they would need to be part of that crowd to avoid it just being a military over-though.

Tenshinai wrote: Remember what happened in Tianemen square in China?

Yes. The communist Chinese (raise from birth to “do what your told or be shot”) military

Tenshinai wrote:

MAD-4A wrote:That’s why the socialist liberals are so adamant about it.

Socialist liberals? Wow, delusional much?

If you are one then I’d say probably.

Tenshinai wrote:

MAD-4A wrote:Anyone who’s against gun rights is against the 2nd amendment. Which is part of the bill of rights. That means they’re against the bill of rights so by default they’re against the 1st amendment’s free speech – so they should SHUT UP!

one again directed at those involved (Americans)

Tenshinai wrote:…80% of USAs assets owned by the richest 1% IIRC… Actually, you have a smaller minority owning more than most other nations…

Apparently you see a few tall redwoods and think the rest of the forest is plains. Yes there are a few super rich Americans. But there are far more per capita rich Americans overall than there are elsewhere – and how many super rich are there where your from? Its not about a few people having a whole lot, its about all the others who have plenty because they can.

MAD-4A wrote:

MAD-4A wrote:You & ½ a billion other free Americans can grab your guns

oops - typo suppose to been 1/3

Tenshinai wrote: Naive... If you go marching with weapons, then regardless if you´re right or wrong, the government has not just a reason, but even an obligation to stop you, and unless they´re being totally obvious about it, the military will still follow orders and you either run home or get killed.

It’s happened, In most countries your right. But in America were raised as free thinkers & almost all American soldiers are like me. We joined because we believe in our country and our freedom. So it’ll take a lot more socialist brain-washing to wash that away. If it’s a case of a real insurrection, where the president (whoever at the time) or another political leader, tries to through out the Constitution and declare himself dictator (whatever term he uses for it). Most (if not all) of the military will likely fall in with the marching crowd. But they would need to be part of that crowd to avoid it just being a military over-though.

So in your scenario, the entire US population, including all of the military and police, oppose him. How is this would-be dictator accomplishing something in the first place, guns or no guns? And I'm hard-pressed to think of a country where he could carry it off under those conditions.

Any dictatorship is going to require the support of a large part of the population and, more significantly, of the military. In which case your march on Washington is going to learn just how effective guns are against artillery and airstrikes.

Eyal makes an excellent point.

No dictator could hope to succeed without support from a large fraction of the military and police. They would need to take incremental steps to bring the police and military under their direct political control and purge them of political dissenters. This has been occurring for five years plus militarization of Federal agencies with stockpiling of ammunition.

You are also correct that armed citizens against mechanized military formations will loose.

This is why an armed citizenry would adopt a strategy of insurgency that would target the civilian supporters of the would be dictator and the police rather than attempt to engage the military. This worked extremely well in Lebanon. Using the 500:1 rule of thumb for counter insurgency, the US would need nearly one million troops. This is presuming that the usurpers supporters who are predominantly hopliphobes survive the first few days of the hoplites going primeval on their asses.

My issue with your post was the IGNORANCE not the opinion.

MAD-4A wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:…To all of the non-US people, I'm sorry…

As a free American I rescind your apology – I don’t need you apologizing for me. As I stated that was directed at American socialists (like you I presume).

Eyal wrote:So in your scenario, the entire US population, including all of the military and police, oppose him

It's a point not literal.

And, NO, initially a coup only needs a large enough minority in the right positions. Once in place it would then require the majority to be complicit not supportive (“all it takes for evil to win is for good to do nothing”). This complicity can be achieved by making it impossible (or seemingly) for the people to do anything about it (hence taking away their GUNS – duh!). And yes it takes control (or complicity of) the military. In most countries that means control of the military leadership (or the majority of it). In the US that won’t work because the troops are not ingrained with “do what your told when your told & don’t ask questions”. So even controlling 60% of the supreme high command doesn’t guaranty that lower commands (or even troops on the ground) will do what their told. And with armed civilians opposing a dictatorial act, the chance of troop complicity is greatly reduced.

Donnachaidh wrote:My issue with your post was the IGNORANCE not the opinion.

the only IGNORANCE I see is from those claiming it without backing it up.

Tenshinai wrote:…Yup, definitely an oligarch system…
No, instead of an elite group of political leaders, you just have an elite group of financial leaders that CONTROL your political leaders… Complete rubbish. And coming from USA, the land of the oligarchs? You have two parties and in both, the only way to get the cash needed for elections is to suck up to the oligarchs… Because you made it so easy for them.

Do you really think you don’t have an “oligarchy”? Who decides in your system, who’s allowed to run for office? Do you have a vote down at the local welfare offices & let the poor choose who runs for office? The difference is that your “oligarchy” is the government and needs to make NO pretenses at all! There’s no such thing as a system without an oligarchy – just different names for it & different levels of control.

Tenshinai wrote:…the only realistic way to curb oligarchs is to have a stronger government. Nothing else really works…Spoken by someone in the most oligarch-dense nation in the world.

Where did you come up with that? Talk about ignorance. Where and when has Any government “curbed” an oligarch. The people “in charge” of the government only replace one set of oligarchs with their own, who now have a free hand to do what they want. Did you ever see a picture of Stalin arriving at the Kremlin on an ox cart? Of-course not. Yet how many Ukrainian farmers were left to starve to death when he stole their crops? Yea socialist countries don’t have oligarchs – my butt.

Tenshinai wrote:i can barely speak because i´m laughing so hard at your ignorance and prejucides.

I’m not laughing. I hope this isn’t a take on the whole world’s ignorance and prejudice from socialist brainwashing. How can anyone read Weber and still be a socialist?

Tenshinai wrote: And studies show that USA is one of the least financially mobile across generations. I recall the study in early 2000s that found that you were 4 times as likely to improve on your sociofinancial position compared to your parents, in Sweden, than in USA. With USA down near the bottom.

You are aware that the social ladder isn’t infinite – anyone who goes up has to displace someone down. America is based on the “middle class” the Idea is to eliminate the poor by reducing the rich. This has been perverted over the last 100 some-odd years, but the existence of a few super rich doesn’t mitigate the large % of middle class.

MAD-4A, I must compliment you on your polite responses under criticism.
That doesn't mean that I agree with you.

I've attached some references to how the US has wealth inequality similar to 3d world countries, not developed countries. A right wing response would be that the land of the free enables people to prosper unhindered, and they then generate wealth for all.
Unfortunately it is not that simple, as this extreme distribution has steadily increased over time as new laws are passed to facilitate it, and old restrictions on corrupt business behaviour are lifted. Generally it is not the hard working innovative entrepreneur generating common wealth that is benefiting from this but the manipulative stock or futures trader who doesn't generate common wealth but exploits loopholes in the system. Not a bigger cake for all, but the same cake cut less fairly.


Your statement "You are aware that the social ladder isn’t infinite – anyone who goes up has to displace someone down. America is based on the “middle class” the Idea is to eliminate the poor by reducing the rich. This has been perverted over the last 100 some-odd years, but the existence of a few super rich doesn’t mitigate the large % of middle class." is erroneous.
The percentage of American citizens in the middle class is steadily shrinking, and more and more the middle class is becoming the working poor anyway, where a job is not enough for a family to survive on in dignity.
I personally would quibble with the social ladder concept anyway in that money doesn't equate to class. No reason why most citizens can not live in happy true equality (not communism or socialism), as one goes up others don't have to come down. Our country has its faults but three mates (buddies) on a fishing trip may well be a magnate, a tradesman, and a pensioner.

Now back to the gun justification. Respected international agencies indicate that your worst nightmare is already stealthily coming true. Uber rich people are using their influence with flexible congressmen to get laws passed that benefit them not the country. Now are you going to get a couple of buddies with your M16s into the Chevy pickup and go to Washington? Not very practical, so why keep assault weapons that are not much use for anything else?

Almost all other developed countries use laws that you would probably deplore as socialist to keep this from happening, and they work.

From http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... ty/245315/

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/as ... -63699.jpg

The U.S., in purple with a Gini coefficient of 0.450, ranks near the extreme end of the inequality scale. Looking for the other countries marked in purple gives you a quick sense of countries with comparable income inequality, and it's an unflattering list: Cameroon, Madagascar, Rwanda, Uganda, Ecuador. A number are currently embroiled in or just emerging from deeply destabilizing conflicts, some of them linked to income inequality: Mexico, Côte d'Ivoire, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Serbia.