The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Just for the purposes of debate (with my previous ideas already stated), why has the British nation not yet succumbed to tyranny with a lack of weaponry available to the common citizen?

---

Good point, alas it will be ignored or handled with something irrelevant like "yeah, but you Brits are compromising your basic freedom".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

It does, if your point is that gun rights should not exist unless there is a "well-regulated militia."

Regardless, the historical context argument does support the right to own firearms, as previously stated. Jefferson.

---

No, that's not my point, have you read my first post? I didn't say gun rights should or should not exist, I said people resisting tyranny is a weak argument for gun ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I meant George Washington. Sorry CR.

-EDIT-

They were probably nations that didn't govern the worlds most impressive military force at the time. Meaning an armed militia could have been a credible adversary to those authoritarian states. The US military is far different.

---

No prob about the history - I was just amused. As for states that banned weapons - they included WWII Germany, which as I recall had quite an impressive military, and the Soviet Union. An armed citizenry is a threat to any dictatorship, no matter how large. The American revolutionaries overthrew the most powerful military on earth.

Quote:

---

Edit 2: is nobody else reminded of Paranoid?

---

Or The Clash?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Well, 1) it's kinda close, from what I hear, and 2) apparently there are more illegal guns there now than there were legal and illegal guns before the ban.

---

To be fair, Manchester is nicknamed Gunchester for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

No, that's not my point, have you read my first post? I didn't say gun rights should or should not exist, I said people resisting tyranny is a weak argument for gun ownership.

---

Then perhaps you could restate it in a different manner? I have reread it and am having trouble deciding where you were going with that point specifically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Then perhaps you could restate it in a different manner? I have reread it and am having trouble deciding where you were going with that point specifically.

---

My point is this. Is it a myth that US citizens would be able to resist a tyrannical/usurper government if they own guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

My point is this. Is it a myth that US citizens would be able to resist a tyrannical/usurper government if they own guns?

---

Answer: no.

I was asking why, specifically, you brought up the militia aspect.

A little background on American militias, and their use, as experienced by the writers of the US Constitution. LINK

Note: this is longish, so skip to the summary if you're pressed for time:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In essence, the 3rd Amendment of the Constitution (seldom looked at in depth), prohibiting the quartering of troops, walks alongside the 2nd Amendment's establishment of the need for a militia. It was envisioned, that when a war (constitutionally declared) was over, via surrender or treaty, that the "standing army" of that war would always be dissolved, or at least reduced in strength to mere cadre level.

Soldiers would return to their fields and farms and shops, until the next emergency, when they, already armed (by the right declared by the 2nd Amendment) would amass again to address the emergency/fight the new war. The "cadre level" would maintain bases, stay up to date on weapons and tactics, and practice managing militia mobilization.

A "large standing army" was and is anathema to American thought; americans prefer a small, crouching army (SCA) instead. This held true until FDR/Truman, armies being deactivated quite routinely between the US's wars.

With the onset of the Cold War, that changed. It being thought of as a war, though undeclared constitutionally, it seemed to justify the funding and support of a large standing army. The immediate events in Korea and, in succession, Viet Nam, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Bosnia, Iraq1, Afghanistan, Iraq2... has gotten 2 generations of americans more accustomed to the idea of a large standing army being "necessary", due to the threats perceived, and the speed with which we think we need to respond to crises/emergencies.

Resulting in a situation in which the LSA (large standing army), its existence and justification, is now a foregone conclusion. To the detriment of the concept of militias.

=============================
In summary: the country wasn't designed to maintain a LSA, just a SCA and a buncha armed volunteers. So, with present reality being athwart that idea, should the 2nd & 3rd Amendments be scrapped? I don't think so. We will eventually return to our senses and abide the Constituion, and its Bill of Rights, and subsequent hard-fought amendments. And we will someday need a means to oppose a tyrannical gov't, short of "off with their heads" revolution. A totally disarmed populace, made so in the name of public safety, removes the final legal means of opposition to oppression.

In my humble opinion. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Note: this is longish, so skip to the summary if you're pressed for time:

---

Followed the link. When you say longish, you are engaging in that most Anglo-Saxon of pastimes: comic understatement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

People could be still hurt by bungee-jumping, dog keeping, cycling, packing crates and slicing a bread. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make them less dangerous. So why aren't those activities banned in laws?

---

You do realize that these activities aren't banned by law because in our present day world, people know the risk involved with doing them. The same thing goes for gun ownership in the US. There are severe flaws in assuming that the 4 original statements are why the 2nd amendment exist. If I suddenly wanted to go hunting, and was in the well regulated season, I am allowed to. The ability to defend my friends and family from, oh lets say, Oakland gangsters trying to expand their turf, who mind you never buys their weapons from a gun store. There is no need to worry about a military force from another country stepping foot in the US because we already have our own "wars" to deal with in the streets.

When "Jack Yo mama dog" is driving down the street with his crew and looking for rival hoods the police aren't going to respond in time to get Jack and his crew after their drive by. While anyone in my family and a well placed round can end Jack's day in a hurry.

So, if you didn't want to read that here's the short hand

Gun ownership is the peoples shield against gangs and other groups (Another nations army being one) of danger.
Gun ownership allows me to feed my family should there be a major disaster with little or no signs of relief in the way of food coming.
Anti-Gun laws won't stop the crypts and the bloods from obtaining their firearms.
There will never be 100% protection from the law.


EDIT: I forgot to add, our military will never fight its own people. They aren't going to mow down their neighbor sally because some crack pot general says so. Even in Iraq and other conflict zones there are reports of men who would hold their fire even though being told to open fire repeated times. That's in a place where you actually have a higher chance of being shot by the guy you choose not to shoot.

The traditional way to get your soldiers to kill their own is to bring in troops from a very different region; that's how China does it, and that's the way every despotic government has done it. Wouldn't work in the U.S.A.

Even if you grabbed a platoon of good ole boys from the backwoods of Arkansas and asked them to fire on civilians in San Fran, I doubt they would do it. Our culture is too mixed, you just don't see the same regional differences that you have in, say, Kenya or Malaysia.

To be fair, Manchester is nicknamed Gunchester for a reason.

And this is why Manchester is the most free and safe place in the UK ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot ~:)

---

What about the 20's?

Will the USA have a standing army in 100 years? 200 years? You can't predict the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

To be fair, Manchester is nicknamed Gunchester for a reason.

And this is why Manchester is the most free and safe place in the UK ~;)

---

Would it happen to be the "most free and safe place in the UK" because the people there can legally own firearms to defend themselves from criminals who would wield firearms anyhow, thus giving ordinary citizens a chance and crime a major deterrent?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

It is light years far from being a fact, it is your personal opinion that lacks any kind of proof. The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained. If they are told, that evil men funded and staffed by terrorist organizations are willing to overthrow the federal government and establish a Muslim Republic, they won't hesitate shooting their own compatriots.

---

I got this far on the first page and saw this and now I don't want to continue in the thread because you have completely discredited yourself by writing, hands down, one of the stoopidest things ever written on this forum. congratulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The traditional way to get your soldiers to kill their own is to bring in troops from a very different region; that's how China does it, and that's the way every despotic government has done it. Wouldn't work in the U.S.A.

Even if you grabbed a platoon of good ole boys from the backwoods of Arkansas and asked them to fire on civilians in San Fran, I doubt they would do it. Our culture is too mixed, you just don't see the same regional differences that you have in, say, Kenya or Malaysia.

---

What about the civil war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I got this far on the first page and saw this and now I don't want to continue in the thread because you have completely discredited yourself by writing, hands down, one of the stoopidest things ever written on this forum. congratulations.

---

You just discredited yourself with a very stupid post without countering or disproving any of my points. Kthxbye.

Quote:

---

What about the civil war?

---

As CR will no doubt point out, the American Civil War was set in a different period in American History, when we viewed ourselves as "Union of States" where citizens held themselves to their state governments before the federal government. After the Civil War, we transformed into a "United States". It's like saying "because the War of the Roses occurred, there is a stronger possibility of Tories and Labor going at it with guns and tanks to decide who is going to be Prime Minister".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Will the USA have a standing army in 100 years? 200 years? You can't predict the future.

---

Will US citizens be able to buy guns if they can't even pay for a standing army? You can't predict the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Will US citizens be able to buy guns if they can't even pay for a standing army? You can't predict the future.

---

"not being able to pay for it" is far from the only reason that we might abandon the standing army, and guns are many many times cheaper than paying for a standing army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The traditional way to get your soldiers to kill their own is to bring in troops from a very different region; that's how China does it, and that's the way every despotic government has done it. Wouldn't work in the U.S.A.

Even if you grabbed a platoon of good ole boys from the backwoods of Arkansas and asked them to fire on civilians in San Fran, I doubt they would do it. Our culture is too mixed, you just don't see the same regional differences that you have in, say, Kenya or Malaysia.

---

Those boyos from Arkansas sure didn't mind shooting my neighbor's dog, and when they almost ran me over while I was on my bicycle, they were laughing it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Henry, I find your arguments interesting, but does it not occur to you that the same slippery-slope situation is occurring among the American populace? Because it is; there's far more paranoid anti-government people in the US than there were 50, 100, or 200 years ago. Anyhow, I would advise you to examine how your local Catholics handled the situation, because it's remarkably similar to how the drug users in the US face the "Drug War": just slip it by. Don't get caught so you can practice your God-given freedoms out of Big Brother's gaze.

---

Aren't guns supposed to be registered? So if a ban did come about, the state would have a pretty good idea who owns what. And besides, consciences, or even drugs, are much easier to hide than weapons.

However, the more I've been thinking about this the more I've come to see the argument of gun-ownership as a defence against tyranny as a bit of a non-issue. Of course, it would be an obstacle for an unscrupulous government, but certainly not an insurmountable one.

Imagine the scenario: it's a time of crisis, and a strongly authoritarian government is elected, with a wannabe despotic President who believes only he can save the United States through strong action. Say he doesn't have nearly enough support in Congress to amend the Constitution to ban guns. A sudden wave of nihilistic, psychpathic terrorism sweeps the country, secretly staged by this evil government. Horrific school shootings, machine guns fired into crowds by seemingly hitherto normal people, mortars being fired from private houses. All of this would never be possible if the most deadly item a citizen could carry was a shotgun. People now clamour for the law to be changed. A few stalwarts might keep the old cry of liberty, but in view of the terrible circumstances they are largely ignored. The constitution is amended, and there you have it, the government can commence their ruthless programme of creating a dictatorship.

All pure hypothesis of course, but if a government really wanted to get rid of gun rights to impose a tyranny, I believe it could do so with relative ease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Aren't guns supposed to be registered? So if a ban did come about, the state would have a pretty good idea who owns what. And besides, consciences, or even drugs, are much easier to hide than weapons.

---

Not all guns should be registered, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

However, the more I've been thinking about this the more I've come to see the argument of gun-ownership as a defence against tyranny as a bit of a non-issue. Of course, it would be an obstacle for an unscrupulous government, but certainly not an insurmountable one.

---

I would rather see the government have a surmountable obstacle to totalitarianism than none at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Not all guns should be registered, in my opinion.

---

But then couldn't anyone buy a gun?

Quote:

---

I would rather see the government have a surmountable obstacle to totalitarianism than none at all.

---

If the conditions are right for a totalitarian government to be installed, I doubt an armed populace would have a great impact, as it would be disarmed from the start. Might as well get rid of the rather unhealthy right, in my opinion, that allows any Tom, Dick or Harry to own highly lethal weapons and with all the often unhappy consequences that entails.

[If any of you are wondering what my precise opinions are on gun control in general, I personally believe that people should be allowed to have small handguns, however, there must be a rigourous selection process partly to filter as many nutters as possible and partly to make it more difficult to obtain one. However, anything above handguns (and hunting rifles obviously) makes me believe that the owner has something else in mind other than merely protecting himself and his family.]

Then you can start bans on knives after guns. Like in Britain. :nod:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Then you can start bans on knives after guns. Like in Britain. :nod:

---

That is taking it too far. What can they ban after that, forks?

Though of course the only proper method of self-defense is the carrying of sword-sticks. No ruffian bent on despoiling one of one's valuables would ever dream of using something so stylish. :toff:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910

Those boyos from Arkansas sure didn't mind shooting my neighbor's dog, and when they almost ran me over while I was on my bicycle, they were laughing it up.

---

Point. But: Back in the '67 Detroit riots, when a Brigade of the 101st Airborne was sent to our east side, they exempted from deployment, anyone whose Home Of Record was Michigan. Very... extremely quiet on that side of town after they arrived.

Whereas on the west side of Woodward Ave, where the State Police, DPD, and Mich Nat'l Guard (all containing local boys) had jurisdiction, the hell broken loose lasted almost a week, and the bodies piled up.

That might look like an argument against the effectiveness of a militia, and the superiority of a LSA. But I hasten to point out that the 95% of non-rioters, many, if not most of whom were armed, kept themselves busy sitting by their front doors, awaiting the invasion of rioters. Those guys were the potential militia, not the sworn officers. And I therefore speculate that had that group come to see the 101st, Nat'l Guard & State Police as invaders of a tyrannical gov't, things would have turned out differently.

All that was lacking was organization. And motive.

What does it take to overthrow a tyranny? Complete victory on the battlefield? No. Militias can't do that. The staunch and prolonged opposition of an armed, radicalized, motivated, righteous majority of the populace can. And has.

Quote:

---

Pink elephants don't exist. Whereas this nation was founded by throwing off the tyranny of a nation (in fact, the nation with the greatest military power in the world at the time) by citizens with guns.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
bollox absolute bollox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I would rather see the government have a surmountable obstacle to totalitarianism than none at all.

---

Indeed. But the only obstacle to totalitarianism is the will of the people.

"Guns do not kill people, people kill people" is an old, and valid refrain. Equally, guns do not defend liberty.

There are many ways of achieving freedom from tyranny. The United States are proud of the role their armed militia played in ridding themselves of the British Empire. India is proud of achieving the same result through strikes, marches and dignified refusal.

These freedoms are derived, no matter the tool employed, by the desire of a people to be free.

After reading (i.e. speed skimming) this entire thread, I have come to a few conclusions:

1. The people most advocating for no more guns are ones with the least amount of U.S. History knowledge.
2. From what I understood from a couple posts, we should not have guns and/or should have lots of guns because there may and/or may not be pink elephants everywhere.
3. ...

This thread is why I don't like to post in the Backroom anymore and comments from both sides made me very disappointed overall.

-ACIN

Quote:

---

This thread is why I don't like to post in the Backroom anymore

---

I didn't realise you posted in the backroom anyway