The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA

[PowerWizard]

This isn't a general firearms debate, so please focus your replies on the following argument of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, typically sounding like this:

An armed populace is the ultimate sanction against government that has overstepped its authority and turned towards tyranny.

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

[Beskar]

Not my full personal opinions, but short answers to why/etc which it could be argued.

what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States

Pretty high, look at all the anti-terror legalisation you guys have, including secretly moving citizens to places lime Guantamo Bay to avoid a fair trial.

what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

Also, with this, you don't have to spend so much on funding an army as they come already equipped, or if the Zombie Terror Outbreak happens, how will Joe Bloggs defend his farmhouse Left4Dead style?

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

The population outnumber the marines. Also the fact, Marines will join the population. If America was going to do it, they would use a foreign armed force, which wouldn't be persuaded to join the opposition.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

They won't be able to because they will never gain enough support.

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

How much power do you want the state to have? If the state becomes too strong, you are defenceless.

[HoreTore]

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

The only case in which this would be a valid argument, is to protect against a small military coup. Nazism, Fascism and Communism have all had huge popular support and most of the time it's been a people's movement, so an armed populace won't do anything against that, as the fascist/nazi/commie supporters will also have the same guns. The most probable outcome in such a case is a long civil war. And we all know how every government act in times of civil war, don't we?

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

An armed population will have zero chance against a foreign military invasion, see Iraq/Afghanistan. Their only chance is, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, to win a war of attrition.

Times change, so do laws.

Indeed.

They won't be able to because they will never gain enough support.

Yes, we've never seen an extremist popular movement end up in a ruthless dictatorship... That's never happened.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You contradict yourself a bit where you argue that gun-ownership allows extremists to form paramilitary groups to overthrow the government, and then on the other hand you argue guns are uselses to civilians since they could never defeat their government in a fight should it become tyrannical.

On the whole though, I agree, gun ownership is not a good thing is today's society. I remember one of the founding fathers said constitutions have to be renewed to meet the needs of the day, can't remember it though.

[King Henry V]

Bah. Any would-be dictatorship in America worth it's salt wouldn't suddenly declare in from one day to the next the suspension of all democratic rights and liberties. They'd use the goold old salami tactics, slicing away those rights bit by bit. When would you, and by you I mean the average American citizen and not some paranoid extremist who crises "Tyranny!" every time they're stopped by the police, resort to something so drastic as armed rebellion? When a 9 pm curfew is established? When the press becomes censored? When voting rights are slowly shaved away? After all, this could only happen in a time of grave crisis, when there is some tangible threat to the very existence of the United States. Many people would believe these measures to be for the public good and would not have much sympathy for people who declared an armed rebellion from the word go.

This is the twenty-first century. Like it or not, the state has much more power than it did two hundred years ago, and very little, least of all sporadic armed resistance.

[PowerWizard]

You contradict yourself a bit where you argue that gun-ownership allows extremists to form paramilitary groups to overthrow the government, and then on the other hand you argue guns are uselses to civilians since they could never defeat their government in a fight should it become tyrannical.

Extremists and normal civilians are two different kinds of groups, I hope we agree. These are two separate issues, there's no contradiction.

Also the fact, Marines will join the population.

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.

How much power do you want the state to have? If the state becomes too strong, you are defenceless.

Presuming the state is intentionally acting against the interests of the people, moreover wants to oppress them. Why would you presume that?

[Beskar]

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.

They will obvious shoot their own families for the state. If the government is that unpopular, it would have breached all aspects including the army. People would desert the army and take up arms along side their friends and families.

People in the army aren't idiots. They might be conditioned for obedience but that only goes so far.

Presuming the state is intentionally acting against the interests of the people, moreover wants to oppress them. Why would you presume that?

Power corrupts. I think politics today shows you how corrupt politicians are, look at examples such as the MP expenses scandal. Do you think the state doesn't oppress people and trample on our civil liberties? The "anti-terrorist" laws, which all they do is strip away our rights in the guise of protection, how a earlier post highlighted. US government is far from the shining beacon of democracy as it claims to be, how it ties up its own citizens and takes them to Guantamo Bay where they are tortured without rights or a fair trial, or even any trial at all.

[PowerWizard]

They will obvious shoot their own families for the state.

Meh, strawman. They will obviously NOT be assigned to posts where they have the chance to shoot their own families. And families could join their side too.

Power corrupts.

Nice thought-terminating cliché.

It is interesting that you would criticize somebody for presenting his opinion as a "fact" only to do the very same thing with your opposite opinion (at least I do not see any kind of "proof" in your argument).

As I am not aware of any case where the willingness of marines to shoot their own people (on a broader scale) has been really but to the test, the two opposing viewa are obviously based on conjecture.

Please address my original questions, then get in the nitty-gritty of the debate.

[Ser Clegane]

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.

It is interesting that you would criticize somebody for presenting his opinion as a "fact" only to do the very same thing with your opposite opinion (at least I do not see any kind of "proof" in your argument).

As I am not aware of any case where the willingness of marines to shoot their own people (on a broader scale) has been really but to the test, the two opposing viewa are obviously based on conjecture.

[Major Robert Dump]

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.

[PowerWizard]

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?

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

It's a low chance. That doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare or even think about it.
Also, you cannot buy an AK-47 unless you have tens of thousands of dollars and the time to fill out a lot of paperwork.

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

Armed citizenry resisting was the case a couple times in the 1800s. Right now it is unlikely. Times will change however, and the future may be different.

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

Police or SWAT? Sure - they can be resisted easily. SWAT teams rely on surprise, they're not soldiers. As for Marines, perhaps you ought to take a look at how many there are (not that many) and how big the US is (huge) and how many people there are (a great deal). Marines can't be everywhere. Look at the trouble they had in Iraq, a country of far fewer people. The military cannot control the population of the US if even a fraction rebels.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

Because I want somebody to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Why should I care what they're doing so long as they don't actually attack someone?

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

It is read in that context- where every male was a member of the militia and well regulated meant well organized and armed. And no, laws do not change over time. They mean the same thing until they are rewritten or repealed.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

Anti-gun folk always say they have the 'common sense' position because they don't really have any facts. If this country rebels, people aren't going to march out and find Marines to fight toe-to-toe with. Maybe you ought to stop thinking about how an idiot would stupidly fight.

The Repubs don't back gun control, and these days it looks as though the Dems don't either. Dead issue.

I'm afraid it's not. There's some dems and liberals for whom it is the main issue. They aren't getting anywhere right now, but that doesn't mean they won't try again. They must be kept under close watch, and the struggle for gun rights must continue.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

In spoilers for language:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Enjoy.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

You really should read the last gun control debate thread, which answers your questions.

[PowerWizard]

You really should read the last gun control debate thread, which answers your questions.

I did, and believe it or not, I made me think about some of my views. It didn't change my mind though about the "well-regulated militia" argument.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I did, and believe it or not, I made me think about some of my views. It didn't change my mind though about the "well-regulated militia" argument.

Hence the link I provided.

[PowerWizard]

Hence the link I provided.

The link you provided is funny, but it doesn't counter my points. It says:

"Why the word people? Because the people who wrote this had just fought a war for 2 years against a tyrannical state. They knew the time would come, when they have to that again."

Which leads us back to the first post.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Insurgence is quite fine in the US: vast expenses filled with the most diverse guerrila friendly terrain, from marshlands to rocky and hilly ground. The US military, as intimidating as it might have seemed, was unable to fully fight the power of the VC back in 'nam near their own nose. Now to guard the whole country against insurgents would be beyond their capabilities, and eventually their strained operational capabilities would be slowly grinded in a low intensity guerrila movement.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The link you provided is funny, but it doesn't counter my points. It says:

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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

This isn't a general firearms debate, so please focus your replies on the following argument of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, typically sounding like this:



First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

We can't "buy an AK-47 on every corner". Nice strawman though.

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

I don't think it's likely. But I don't think that's the purpose of the 2A.

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

If a third of the US supported the revolution, it would be hopeless for the Marines and the entire armed forces to put down such a movement, except perhaps locally. It wouldn't be fought conventionally, civilian rifles against tanks. It would be fought as a guerrilla war, hitting military targets where they are weakest (behind the lines, supply depots, that sort of thing). Not to mention that parts of the military are likely to join any popular revolution.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

Groups that openly advocate such as usually dealt with. If it is done in secret, how will disarming the population change things?

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

The "historical context" argument supports gun rights.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

Well that's nice. You can say "you're argument is stupid" and it just goes away?

[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?

[Reverend Joe]

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?

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.

Edit: 20 more posts and I have 4200 posts...

...get it?

Edit 2: is nobody else reminded of Paranoid?

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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?

A lack of weaponry does not mean there will be a tyranny. It merely means there is one less recourse to use against such a thing.

[PowerWizard]

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".

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[PowerWizard]

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?

[Reverend Joe]

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

Fairly good, considering that both parties have not only totally consolidated power in the election system (thus effectively eliminating choice) and that both parties are slowly growing more totalitarian in nature. I personally see no difference in the overall goal of both parties, aside form the fact that the Democrats want a Communist state, and the Republicans want a Fascist state run by their bigtime corporate buddies. Basically, it adds up to the same thing: no free market or state, or choice.

Color me paranoid.

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

An invasion is very unlikely given the current circumstances. However, if the populace were forced to break their "contract" with the Government, it would not only necessitate the use of powerful weaponry, but it would also greatly increase the likelihood of foreign intervention. In such a case, I will admit that those who would style themselves to be prepared to resist the crazy train would need actual training in partisan warfare if they want to have a chance.[/quote]

Maybe they should learn a little from the Iraqi Parisans.

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

Very bad, if they don't know what they are doing. If they do, well, it's a known fact that a populace which does not wish to be conquered, will never be conquered.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

It may arm psychopaths, but it also allows regular citzens to defend their homes (and I do mean their HOMES -- I absolutely disagree with any firearm-related action extending beyond your property grounds, as it gets far too iffy in legal and realistic terms.) It also gives the rest of us a chance just in case. And yeah, you can bitch and whine about "realistic," but if you don't ever have a plan B, you will be screwed when the time comes, no matter how low the chances.

Hell, there's a latent fear that honey-bees are dying off. That's a big problem; all major crops depend upon bees for productivity. Do we have a plan B? No, until just recently, when people started looking at Carpenter bees and other types of bees. Seems crazy, but the collapse of a small part of our system can lead to disastrous consequences.

Point is, you best have a plan B.

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

A "well-regulated milita" means an armed populace by its original definition, and I find it to be equally applicable now as ever. And don't insult our intelligence, please. It's rude.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

Anyhow, sorry for reading ZERO of this thread, but I felt like dropping my own arguments at random. Let's see how it works, eh?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

[QUOTE=PowerWizard;2249377]This isn't a general firearms debate, so please focus your replies on the following argument of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, typically sounding like this:

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument.

Well, PowerWizard, the mere assumption that government WON'T become oppressive is often what gives bad people the opportunity to make it oppressive. We need to make sure that government knows that we won't take crap lying down.

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

Actually, wanna know the reason that Japan never invaded continental U.S.? They're like, "Everybody has GUNS in this country!!!"

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

I've thought of this many times, and agree with you. If the mayor of my town declared marshall law and started rounding up and assassinating political enemies, employing the National Guard, the county SWAT team, and goodness knows whatever else, I think I'd lose.

But that's no reason to throw everything out the window. I might lose, but it would sure make the gov't think twice if they considered the resistance they might get for doing... whatever.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

When has this happened? Besides, do you think that people need "assault weapons" to do serious damage? The naievete of this idea is shocking. I know a great way to kill off a whole room full of people for under $10, no illegal hardware required.

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

Because we comprehend that this is a cheap attempt at devaluing the Constitution. If that clause is "outdated," then why wouldn't the rest be outdated? Hey guess what, I think that the 1st Ammendment is outdated now. Only people who agree with me should be able to open their mouths.



If you strip away the value of the Constitution like that, then you basically say that whatever fad of the moment that we come up with should be law. And by doing that, the whole concept of the Republic is undermined; it becomes a rule of the mob.