2020 Election

[Dill]

(08-16-2020, 05:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'll have to find the posts in which I advocated against a free press, independent judiciary and fair and free elections.  Then you'd have the basis for making this argument against me.  I'll wait.

I had no idea that private citizens in Saddam's Iraq had such free access to firearms.  In any event, see my response to Hollodero for a further argument against this type of point.

Wait, Afghanistan has widespread civilian firearms ownership and a tradition of personal liberty?  Fascinating.  Also, did Italy have widespread civilian access to firearms?  I'm anxious for your reply.

Wait no longer--my reply is here!

1. You don't stand accused of advocating against a free press, independent judiciary, and fair and free elections. What I want to see are all the posts expressing your concern over Trump's attacks on the free press, his stacking the judiciary, his attack on free and fair elections, and other abuses of power. (As Bels has regularly done, often followed by complete silence.) Until I see them, there is no evidence you prioritize any of that over gun control, which you just posited as evidence of my "disconnect" regarding authoritarian creep.  

2. You learn something new every day. Iraqi citizens from Kurds in the north to Shia Arabs in the South owned not just "firearms," but fully automatic weapons. I saw, and referenced, your response to Hollodero. Hence my reference to . . .

3. . . . the notoriously armed and independent Afghans. Who were subdued, and by a state with little in the way of heavy weapons, artillery and aircraft. In any case, the orientalist premise is a very questionable reach at this point in history. Or should be. 

Hollo really has the more valid point here. In many populations there are groups which identify with tyrannical states and the leaders of such are happy to either arm or leave them armed. (The Nazi relaxation of liberal democratic Weimar's strict gun laws fit that mold.) In others, the breakdown of civil order enables an arming of the citizenry regardless of law, enhancing the death and chaos (e.g., El Salvador).  Italy had few gun laws in place in 1919, when the Fascist party was founded. The Republic began instituting some controls when Fascists and Communists began fighting in the streets. Mussolini did institute some gun laws in '22,'28, '31 and '38, which helped him control liberals. Fascism has generally been comfortable with with gun ownership for party members. Guns are symbols of masculinity, and fascism is, among other things, a masculine identity movement. (You ready to Trump me with an English link to Mussolini's 1931 speech on gun confiscation? lol)

Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil's Trump (who has also been married three times and admires dictators), is fine with expanding gun rights while breaking up their parliamentary democracy step by step. The expanding rights seem to be arming his supporters. "Personal liberty" thrives as Brazil lurches towards dictatorship. 

Long story short--"gun control" just isn't a useful indicator of "authoritarian creep."  Let's stick to attacks on the press, stacking the judiciary, and impeding free and fair elections.