The ESA Concludes Its Violent Video Game Discussion With Vice President Joe Biden

[Mr Khan]

bouzane said:

Mr Khan said:

bouzane said:

Open your history book and turn to World War II. Hitler was a proponent of gun prohibition and for good reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

Maybe you should start looking at European history for examples of gun prohibition implemented by tyrannical leaders?

What did the Ghetto Uprising achieve for them? Nothing. In a grand military strategy sense, it does make sense to not have to deal with armed rebellion at home while fighting a war elsewhere, but rational rebels won't fight unless they know they're going to be destroyed anyway (as in the Ghetto uprising) or if they think they have a shot at winning (which, against Nazi Germany... nah...)

Armed resistance to tyranny is usually counterproductive for a couple reasons. One, tyranny is usually going to be better-armed, unless you're going up against an inept failed state of some sort, so you're probably just going to get killed. It is thus that tyrants really aren't "afraid" of armed rebellion, so much as they find it a nuisance to be avoided. Two, as i said before, armed rebellion gives too much representation to the people with guns, so you end up with warlordism, or severely divided militia factions that lead to future violence (like the Irish Civil War, or the groups running around Libya currently).

Peaceful and/or substate-sanctioned revolutions are what lead to liberty. Liberty will not happen before it is ready to happen.

I'd rather die fighting tyranny than simply be led to a concentration camp. How do you fail to see the importance of an individual having the ability to resist those who would take everything from you?

Of course the tyrants are usually much better armed, they implement gun control and prohibition. Hitler's gun prohibition was quite effective and as a result the resistance was very poorly armed. They should never have allowed it to reach that point. Those who would take your power never have your best interests at heart.

Both of your examples of rebellion gone wrong involve sectarian religious terrorism, hardly applicable to modern day America. Look at how the British mistreated the Irish for centuries and just look at the religious divisions present there, of course the region is unstable. If you took away the IRAs crappy semi-automatic AR15's they'd simply use more nail bombs and home-made flame throwers anyway so again, gun prohibition is not the solution rendering the point moot.

Also, want to discredit any of my other points supporting gun ownership?

Some of your other points i'm willing to grant. Total prohibition is, unfortunately, unfeasible, similar to how drug prohibition is sadly unfeasible. But that does not mean we should concede to a culture of violence and paranoia. This isn't the 18th century anymore. Or the 19th, or the 20th, for that matter. The Berlin Wall fell without a shot being fired by either side.

And yes, i've been to Japan, and i quite enjoyed it there. While i harbor no illusions about Japanese culture, that there are some problems with the nanny state in general and theirs in particular (some of which are unique to Japan, like the very slow-moving, bureaucratic nature of their politics, and their backwards family-law vis-a-vis women), but it was a safe place with a vibrant (if stagnant) private sector.