The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA

[Fiddling_nero]

One of the very few things in this modern age that would cause a full scale revolt/revolution would be if the Second Amendment were repealed.

If this Right isn't safe from being repealed, then what Right is safe?

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.

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?

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

It is implied that the current makeup of the military, being an all volunteer force, would have some patriots in it.

And most patriots would tell the State to go fornicate itself if there is a conflict between the orders of the State and the Constitution, because the Constitution is the source of the structure and legitimacy of the State.
If the State is issuing orders that conflict with the Constitution, then the State is no longer legitimate. (that is also a part of their training)

____

The Second Amendment is there for many reasons.

The most important is that it is the American Litmus Test for Tyrants TM.
Most who would try to touch it have ambitions beyond traditional American political custom.

[HoreTore]

It is implied that the current makeup of the military, being an all volunteer force, would have some patriots in it.

It is implied that any wannabe despot would redefine the meaning of "patriotism" to mean supporting the dictator. Anyone who doesn't support said despot would be labeled traitors, and would be fair game for every "patriot".

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

How 'bout giving some sources on that? Please note; only studies performed by non-partisan organizations will be accepted...

[Lemur]

How 'bout giving some sources on that? Please note; only studies performed by non-partisan organizations will be accepted...

Don't bother asking; Sasaki is not actually participating in a thread when he does his "9 million" thing; it's his personal, private joke.

To those who say an armed populace does not deter a modern military, take a look at how much trouble we had with people armed with AKs and explosives in Iraq. Although given that example, to deter tyranny we need fewer hunting rifles and more plastique.

Besides which, the gun control debate is kind of silly. There are millions (9 million?) firearms in the U.S.A., and they don't expire like milk. Our population is armed, and any talk of disarming them is fantasy-land wishful thinking. Better to talk about how to enforce existing laws and have as few firearms as possible land in the hands of the criminal and the insane.

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

[HoreTore]

To those who say an armed populace does not deter a modern military, take a look at how much trouble we had with people armed with AKs and explosives in Iraq. Although given that example, to deter tyranny we need fewer hunting rifles and more plastique.

Two things:

- As shown by both Iraq and Afghanistan, a crazy amount of insurgents did not deter the US in the slightest.
- Secondly, you think Joe Iraqi had his house stuffed with c-4, RPG's and so on before the invasion? He didn't, nor did he need to, since an invasion creates a power vacuum for looting, as well as allies(Iran, Syria, etc etc) willing to give you a bunch of stuff for free. Also, there seems to be an unending supply of black market ex-soviet weapons...

[King Henry V]

One of the very few things in this modern age that would cause a full scale revolt/revolution would be if the Second Amendment were repealed.

If this Right isn't safe from being repealed, then what Right is safe?



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?

Sure, but what happens if in 50, 100 or 200 years time America is threatened by the Enemy Within who seek to destroy all that America stands for? If the loons in the Pentagon advocating nuclear war with Russia during the Cold War are anything to go by, I doubt you woud lack people in the military who believe that like in Ancient Rome, in times of crisis one must suspend certain liberties in order to destroy this enemy and anyone who sympathises with them.

Besides, say a potential megalomaniac hell-bent on becoming Emperor of America is elected President, and manages to amend the constitution through Congress. All privately-owned guns are banned, citing the reasonable grounds of crime-prevention. What are you going to do when asked to hand in your gun? Shout "You'll never take me alive!" before barricading yourself in your house staging your one-man rebellion?

[Marshal Murat]

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.

The invasion of a foreign power into the United States need not simply be a total invasion of all areas of the United States. Were Cuba to invade South Florida, that would be a "foreign power invading the United States" and could conceivably be either harassed or countered by a combination of partisan gun-owners, detached armed forces, and police forces until National Guard and Army troops could throw the Cubans back into the sea.

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.

So an armed population can win against a foreign invasion. The statement is entirely predicated on the assumption that our foes share the same moral standards we do. If they have censored news and no problem killing Americans, then we have a serious problem that will result in the total defeat of America no matter what we have.

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 an "armed militia" consists of a couple disaffected homeowners who own hunting rifles, then I would bet on the Marines, Police, and SWAT. Were it a tyrannical government which is generally unpopular then the "homeowners" might eventually gain support to overthrow the government. Especially if we were to enlist the aid of countries who don't like the "current tyrannical government".

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.

Impossible. You are seriously suggesting that the Marine Corp is going to go through it's lists, and then move troops around so much to prevent Marine units from being posted in "home-areas" is not only highly impractical but it would also ruin unit cohesion and prevent the Marines from operating effectively in a counter-insurgency. While Marines are some of the best soldiers in the United States, we aren't talking about heroes. If that was the case, we wouldn't have friend-on-friend or civilian casualties would we?

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.

Agreed.

Zombie Terror Outbreak happens, how will Joe Bloggs defend his farmhouse Left4Dead style?

Greatest support for gun-rights.

[rory_20_uk]

The invasion of a foreign power into the United States need not simply be a total invasion of all areas of the United States. Were Cuba to invade South Florida, that would be a "foreign power invading the United States" and could conceivably be either harassed or countered by a combination of partisan gun-owners, detached armed forces, and police forces until National Guard and Army troops could throw the Cubans back into the sea.

Ok...

Radar
A fleet
An airforce
An army...

Here's the timeline:

Cuba sets off in a combination of rafts, rusting ex-soviet ships and cargo containers. They are detected before leaving port.
The ones that don't sink slowly make their way towards Florida; the covering aeroplanes run out of fuel and have to turn back as ethanol has a shorter range.
When the coastguard have stopped gut laughing they inform the Navy and set off to rescue those drowning due to the capsizing of most of the rafts and ships.
The minute anything sets foot in USA waters there are already ships en-route. The Navy and coastguard, who both have more sophisticated ships and weaponry argue whether this is an invasion or whether they've just got lost and who has juristiction.
Contact is finally made - the difficulties being the lack of working radios on the Cuban ships.
Those that decide to try small arms verses the USA ships get sunk within seconds. The rest declare asylum.

The point being - they'll NEVER reach land in an organised way

What's next? Mexicans invading? The Russians finding the remains of the Pacific fleet and invading? The Chinese sneakily building a blue-water fleet, making it accross the whole pacific without detection and storming the beaches?

When you're a weak power with powerful Imperial neighbours with a vast, hostile hinterland this argument is valid. But as the world's largest power? Please...

[Yoyoma1910]

Well, what if your city falls into anarchy, the state fails to respond properly, and you have to protect yourself, your family, your property and your neighbors and their property from roving bands of armed and violent criminals?

And don't tell me for one moment that does not, and would not happen in the U.S.

[HoreTore]

Well, what if your city falls into anarchy, the state fails to respond properly, and you have to protect yourself, your family, your property and your neighbors and their property from roving bands of armed and violent criminals?

And don't tell me for one moment that does not, and would not happen in the U.S.

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely?

[drone]

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely?

You have no idea what he is referring to here, do you?

[Yoyoma1910]

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely?

Oh, and what if the Federal government takes the majority of your state military and their infrastructure, which normally deals with such a situation, and plants them in a place like, I don't know, Iraq, where they wouldn't be able to respond to such a situation.

[Crazed Rabbit]

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely?

In the Rodney King riots in the early 1990s, the LAPD pulled their officers off the streets for the officer's safety. Guns let business owners defend themselves and their stores.

As shown by both Iraq and Afghanistan, a crazy amount of insurgents did not deter the US in the slightest.

Gee, you mean the spots where we were going to be welcomed as liberators? The US wasn't deterred because the government didn't even think about that.

CR

[Marshal Murat]

Don't worry rory, Harold Coyle has you covered

[Reverend Joe]

Sure, but what happens if in 50, 100 or 200 years time America is threatened by the Enemy Within who seek to destroy all that America stands for? If the loons in the Pentagon advocating nuclear war with Russia during the Cold War are anything to go by, I doubt you woud lack people in the military who believe that like in Ancient Rome, in times of crisis one must suspend certain liberties in order to destroy this enemy and anyone who sympathises with them.

Besides, say a potential megalomaniac hell-bent on becoming Emperor of America is elected President, and manages to amend the constitution through Congress. All privately-owned guns are banned, citing the reasonable grounds of crime-prevention. What are you going to do when asked to hand in your gun? Shout "You'll never take me alive!" before barricading yourself in your house staging your one-man rebellion?

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.

[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:

[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

[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?