The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA

[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.

[Beskar]

As for proof of my argument. Look at any civil wars. Not everyone joins the side of the state. Armies and generals can join the opposite side as well. Look at all the cases of revolutions around the world, same happens there as well. They don't just obey their master, especially if the master is very unpopular, even with them.

[Ser Clegane]

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

As a "moderator" I got into this nitty-gritty detail as the discussion style took a not so constructive direction, i.e. chastising somebody who responded to your thread for labeling his opinion as a fact while doing the very same thing.

I think overall your discussions would benefit from applying a less hostile tone

Thanks you

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's a fact that 9 million lives have been saved by the 2nd amendment. Maybe you should have read up on that.

[PowerWizard]

As a "moderator" I got into this nitty-gritty detail as the discussion style took a not so constructive direction, i.e. chastising somebody who responded to your thread for labeling his opinion as a fact while doing the very same thing.

I think overall your discussions would benefit from applying a less hostile tone

Thanks you

It's a fact, that Marines will obey anything they are told, except for maybe killing their own mother.

And I'd just like to hear your opinion, good Sir.

As for proof of my argument. Look at any civil wars. Not everyone joins the side of the state. Armies and generals can join the opposite side as well. Look at all the cases of revolutions around the world, same happens there as well. They don't just obey their master, especially if the master is very unpopular, even with them.

Don't civil wars happen in the first place, because of the abundance of weapons? I wonder how can you fight a civil war without guns.

There are 3 components to their code of honor.

1. Loyalty to the State
2. Loyalty to the US Constitution
3. To protect the People of the US

If there is a conflict between those things in their orders, which do you think would be more dominant?

Obviously the first value: loyalty to the state. That assures my point of view.

Also remember that Marines and other service members are people, not automatons, with other influences on their lives other than their training.

Aha, okay. Just a few points to add to that statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdania_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Gale

Also, check out these: U.S. Marine Corps - Making a Marine part 1, 2 and 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYRccSZgXV4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPgk...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPRz...eature=related

[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.

[Marshal Murat]

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".