The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA

[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?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[KukriKhan]

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.

[Lemur]

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.