The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA

[King Henry V]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

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.

[King Henry V]

Not all guns should be registered, in my opinion.

But then couldn't anyone buy a gun?

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.]

[Beskar]

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

[King Henry V]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

[Tribesman]

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

I didn't realise you posted in the backroom anyway

[LittleGrizzly]

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?

So illegal guns do not defend freedom as well as legal ones....?

The goverment simply need to make guns illegal and thier freedom keeping properties become useless then... it thier freedom keeping properties are reduced to nothing so easily can thier freedom keeping properties be said to exsist at all...

It was just a joke anyway...

Safety eh? I think Tony Martins farm was raided loads of times... despite being an aggressive shotgun wielding umm... person

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And that always works. No maniac will ever get access to a gun...

A maniac will acquire a firearm whether it is legal or not, regardless of registry laws (and if he has to pass a background check, and passes it, he will also be able to register his firearm, so your point has no effect - unless you propose banning all firearms completely).

But then couldn't anyone buy a gun?

This is your answer:

Even in states without registration, buying a gun from a store means you have to pass a background check.

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.

It entails some unhappy consequences, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. An armed populace would have an impact, however major or slight, and would therefore be a welcome obstacle to a totalitarian government. Again, it is better to give a totalitarian government a series of slight obstacles than none at all.

[PowerWizard]

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

You just proved that you didn't care enough to read through the posts and try to understand the different views.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I didn't realise you posted in the backroom anyway

You just proved that you didn't care enough to read through the posts and try to understand the different views.

@Tribesman: That just totally won me over to your side. Stay classy.

@PowerWizard: EDIT: Oops that was hore.

EDIT 2: I think MRD said it best about you already.

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.

-ACIN

[Tribesman]

I've figured it out. Tribesy posts from an alternate dimension where the UK won that nasty little colonial insurrection.

errrrr.......bollox , no more needs to be said as you obviously are clueless about history
Though for those with functioning brains a simple question....If Britain was the greatest military power in the world then who the hell was the military superpower that comprehensively defeated them ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

Registeration laws vary across states. And that is why I'm against registration.

But then couldn't anyone buy a gun?

Even in states without registration, buying a gun from a store means you have to pass a background check.

CR

[||Lz3||]

you have to pass a background check.

And that always works. No maniac will ever get access to a gun...

[Crazed Rabbit]

And that always works. No maniac will ever get access to a gun...

Bah. An annoying strawman argument. Yes, maniacs will always get a hold of weapons, no matter the laws.

CR

[King Henry V]

Registeration laws vary across states. And that is why I'm against registration.



Even in states without registration, buying a gun from a store means you have to pass a background check.

CR

Rightyho.

It entails some unhappy consequences, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. An armed populace would have an impact, however major or slight, and would therefore be a welcome obstacle to a totalitarian government. Again, it is better to give a totalitarian government a series of slight obstacles than none at all.

All right, I suppose we should just agree to disagree. I fear mob rule more than I fear tyranny, and a heavily-armed populace certainly contributes more to that threat more than it impedes totalitarianism.

[Ironside]

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.

Psh, to get a dictorship in the US the "easy" way is to play on the enemy within card. How many soldiers would have opened fire on a bunch of people they were told were communists (or whatever this new enemy would be) after those communists had caused a 9/11? How many would do it after the second attack?

Even in states without registration, buying a gun from a store means you have to pass a background check.

CR

I think I asked in the last thread, but how is this backround check done? Accessing some public record or some larger private organisations?
But the real question is, could an evil goverment gather decent information about gun ownership by some key intel gathering and cross-records?