The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gee I suppose the winners in the Revlutionary war came out better too ...oh sorry they came out bankrupt didn't they .

So Rabbit what did Britain win in the seven years war?
Oh they won the wonderful prize of errrrr.....more very expensive wars to fight didn't they.

Again, you dodge the issue of whether the British came out better than the losers, specifically the French, after the war. The British won virtual control of India, in terms of European countries, by crippling the French presence there. They also gained most of France's colonies in the New World. Did you really not know that?

France lost those territories and had greater financial difficulties than Britain. And even your attempt to dodge the issue is weak - yes the US was greatly in debt when it was formed, but they had gained a new nation. Turned out better than losing.

So I suppose this will be a new round of tribesy arguing; you ignore most of a post in order to reply to the one bit you have some snarky comment for. You don't even try to defend your argument. You've lost.

CR

[Tribesman]

Didn't Britain win Quebec and other areas from the French, and several Caribbean islands from the Spanish?

Yes and no .

Again, you dodge the issue of whether the British came out better than the losers, specifically the French, after the war. The British won virtual control of India, in terms of European countries, by crippling the French presence there. They also gained most of France's colonies in the New World. Did you really not know that?

Too funny .
So Rabbit in the time frame we are talking of what was the price of winning that 7 years war and what was the massive outlay afterwards involved in trying to secure those "gains" ? Why was one of those "gains"(or several if you really want to get historical) part of Britains defeat (you might get lots of pointers in the peace treaty that ended the American revolution).
The really funny thing is that britains effforts to secure a sort of victory in world power games that led to an overstretch that was compounded by the overstetch of trying to secure the gains which resulted in a revolution against the measures that were to pay for the liabilties the "victory" entailed

France lost those territories and had greater financial difficulties than Britain.

Smilies don't seem to be working , so I laugh my arse off in the face of your pathetic nonsense that has no relation to historical reality .
Think about it Rabbit , lucrative distant outposts do in the very long term have great returns , but in the short/medium term they are nothing but a very expensive and very troublesome liability

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Especially when occupied with well-armed riff-raff who think they're equal to Englishmen.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Smilies don't seem to be working , so I laugh my arse off in the face of your pathetic nonsense that has no relation to historical reality .

I realise just how traumatic the loss of smileys must be, but there's still no excuse to write beastly things about fellow members.

Less hostility please. From all contributors.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The question is not whether Great Britain was a greater power than France in 1776. The question is, was France two or three times more powerful than Great Britain?

The world was different in 1776. Britain had only just started its long demographic and industrial revolution. (Before someone mentions that 'long' and 'revolution' is stoopid, the tension between the two words is quite deliberate)

The story of Britain is not that of an ancient Great Power. The story is about the ascendency of a country of medium size and import to the world's greatest empire over the period of three centuries.

The comparison between France and Britain isn't crucial. More important is the difference between Britain and the US. In 1776, the American colonies were a small country, about the size and importance of Belgium. Great Britain was a medium power on the rise. How the first overcame the latter needs to be explained. Which I am not going to do here.
Nor anywhere else for that matter, since I do not know the first thing about it.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

Very few tyrannical regimes have little support amongst the populace. On the contrary. Tyranny is not two hundred against two million. It is two hundred against one million with the full support of the other one million*, whom somehow have been persuaded into voluntarily aiding their own oppression.
(*this 1 million customarily consists of the usual suspects of infatilodytes, of lovers of authority, of these slaves who prefer the distinction of being owned by the largest slaveholder over personal freedom)

In this sense, an armed populace is neither solution nor prevention. It will only determine the ferocity of the civil war.

In the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and others, later mystification and simplication described the revolutions in terms of 'the people' assuming control against a small tyranical regime. This is not the case. Both were civil wars. Their revolutions spread from a small minority. To a large extent, they were forced upon the majority.

The American loyalists were armed just as well as the independentalists. (Which is not a proper English word, but the term for those colonists seeking independence escapes me at the moment)

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

In my favourite reading of the Second Amendment, the consequence of the amendment is accepted. One does not have a right to bear arms in and of itself. There's no free ride. Instead, a well-regulated militia will safeguard the freedom of the state. Join, take up your responsibility in this manner, and you can be an armed citizen.

This is the interpretation in places like Switzerland. A conscription army, made up of citizens. And those that have joined have the right (and the duty) to be an armed citizen.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

I agree with the premise of this thread. Of all the pro-gun arguments, the argument that it protects against tyranny is the weakest.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Too funny .
So Rabbit in the time frame we are talking of what was the price of winning that 7 years war and what was the massive outlay afterwards involved in trying to secure those "gains" ? Why was one of those "gains"(or several if you really want to get historical) part of Britains defeat (you might get lots of pointers in the peace treaty that ended the American revolution).
The really funny thing is that britains effforts to secure a sort of victory in world power games that led to an overstretch that was compounded by the overstetch of trying to secure the gains which resulted in a revolution against the measures that were to pay for the liabilties the "victory" entailed

Ah - again you dodge the issue of whether whether France or Britain was better off. You again don't talk about the difficulties facing the French and instead talk about what the British faced many years after the war. So the British raised taxes after the war - that doesn't mean they were a less powerful nation than other nations who also had financial difficulties. The seven years war began a series of decisions for Britain that led to the Revolution. But that doesn't mean they came out of the seven years war worse off or that they were less powerful than France.

Smilies don't seem to be working , so I laugh my arse off in the face of your pathetic nonsense that has no relation to historical reality .
Think about it Rabbit , lucrative distant outposts do in the very long term have great returns , but in the short/medium term they are nothing but a very expensive and very troublesome liability

Aww, how cute. You think I give a care about what you think.

More of your eloquent thoughts. And I wonder why people would ever think about disagreeing with such a powerful, witty mind.
I'll just link to here: http://www.answers.com/topic/seven-years-war

The Seven Years War had thus established Britain's maritime and colonial dominance over her Bourbon rivals, and after 1763 she was clearly Europe's leading commercial and imperial power. Within Europe, by contrast, no such clear-cut result was apparent. Yet the political consequences of the continental fighting were in some ways even more momentous. The survival of Prussia and the military victories won by Russia established these two states as continental great powers. France by contrast had been defeated in both struggles, while the war's enormous cost was a major source of the massive financial problems of the Bourbon monarchy during the next generation which made a major contribution to the outbreak of the French Revolution of 1789.

Bibliography

* Dorn, W. L., Competition for Empire, 1740-1763 (New York, 1940).
* Duffy, Christopher, Frederick the Great: A Military Life (London, 1985).
* Middleton, Richard, The Bells of Victory: The Pitt-Newcastle Ministry and the Conduct of the Seven Years' War, 1757-1762 (Cambridge, 1985).
* Peters, Marie, The Elder Pitt (London, 1998).
* Showalter, Dennis E., The Wars of Frederick the Great (London, 1996)

So we're in the familiar spot of me actually providing evidence and links and everything and you using your primary debating tactic of insulting your opponent and disagreeing with them in vague ways. Gee, I didn't see that coming!

In my favourite reading of the Second Amendment, the consequence of the amendment is accepted. One does not have a right to bear arms in and of itself. There's no free ride. Instead, a well-regulated militia will safeguard the freedom of the state. Join, take up your responsibility in this manner, and you can be an armed citizen.

I'm afraid that's the wrong reading. The people who wrote the amendment did not think of the militia as something you joined, but something that you (well, all adult males, but in these progressive times we could surely include all adults) were a part of. The militia isn't the army or the national guard.

CR

[Reverend Joe]

This is the interpretation in places like Switzerland. A conscription army, made up of citizens. And those that have joined have the right (and the duty) to be an armed citizen.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

I agree with the premise of this thread. Of all the pro-gun arguments, the argument that it protects against tyranny is the weakest.

I think, Louis, that you have a point. However, I would clarify it with what Rabbit said:

I'm afraid that's the wrong reading. The people who wrote the amendment did not think of the militia as something you joined, but something that you (well, all adult males, but in these progressive times we could surely include all adults) were a part of. The militia isn't the army or the national guard.

CR

On the other hand, though, I am bothered by people who wantonly hoard guns in some misguided attempt to "protect" themselves. While I agree that the "Militia" is simply the armed populace as a whole, I also think that people have a responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm. They should know, for example, how to use it properly, and how to defend themselves properly.

The best way to ensure this, in my view, is to have voluntary firearms training classes, preferably hosted by people who know what the hell they're talking about. In return, these classes could be Government-funded, and the people who attend them could expect some kind of reward from the Government; say, a Jury-style payment for attending the classes at night, or a tax credit. Again, they should be voluntary, because mandatory classes will be another loophole allowing the Government to restrict gun ownership through burdensome regulation. Hopefully, though, these classes would encourage the Militia to be "well-regulated."

Another way in which the "well-regulated" doctrine could be upheld is by offering further classes on irregular warfare. These, predictably, would not be affiliated with the government, but they would provide those interested in fullfilling their duties as members of the militia with the knowledge of how to properly engage in warfare, whether as the result of an invading foreign power or as the result of a civil war or insurrection. I know, it sounds ridiculous and slightly dangerous to arm the people against the government, but better that the people at least have a chance, so that the government will always have that doubt in mind when trying to strip people of their rights.

[Tribesman]

Ah - again you dodge the issue of whether whether France or Britain was better off.

So you are having difficulty reading .

You think I give a care about what you think.

The problem here Rabbit is that you are unable to think and are far too wrapped up in the militia myth to see anything.
Britain financed another countries war and didn't get its money back .
Britain gained some "assets" that were very very expensive to maintain so they "won" a liabilty , it was the effort of trying to secure those "assets" plus the loss of the loans that left Britain worse off.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

@ LittleGrizzly:

Perhaps we should all remember that you are from U.K.

So U.K.'s political climate is hardly a convincing argument for greater gun control in the U.S.

Perhaps British women couldn't care less about guns. In the U.S., the movement is growing rapidly.

Anyways, LG, you are a great deal more reasonable than some gun control proponents, and have presented your case very well.

Smilies don't seem to be working , so I laugh my arse off in the face of your pathetic nonsense that has no relation to historical reality .

OK I have to confess that in all honesty I found this to be hilariously funny, even though when I consider the context it is rather pointless. Not a viable argument, but when taken by itself, quite funny.

So, Tribesman, tell you what; we'll give you one count.

Since the U.S. won the war, it was more powerful than G.B.

However, that needs to be conditioned BIG TIME.

The American force was ultimately more powerful that the force that Britain sent over.

Overall, however, G.B. completely dwarfed the colonies in every way.

Thus, the observation that the British weren't technically the most powerful nation in the world is completely semantic in nature; a play with words.

And even if G.B. HADN'T been "most powerful" it isn't as if the colonies were even in the top 10!!!

However you look at it, the colonists schooled a much tougher power.

And again (moving away from the revolution) I remind you all that the Japanese avoided an invasion of Continental U.S. because so many people carried guns. That is only 60-some years ago. ;)

Although the armed citizenry might not win in the end, is that a reason for not trying???

Just the fact that we MIGHT try is enough to discourage the power-hungry, if for nothing more than the massive inconvenience it will cause him.

[Crazed Rabbit]

On the other hand, though, I am bothered by people who wantonly hoard guns in some misguided attempt to "protect" themselves. While I agree that the "Militia" is simply the armed populace as a whole, I also think that people have a responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm. They should know, for example, how to use it properly, and how to defend themselves properly.

In my experience, most people with large amounts of firearms tend to know a lot about using them. Indeed, knowing how to use them and taking them to the range is the appeal of owning many firearms.

The best way to ensure this, in my view, is to have voluntary firearms training classes, preferably hosted by people who know what the hell they're talking about. ...

Another way in which the "well-regulated" doctrine could be upheld is by offering further classes on irregular warfare. ...

Sounds good to me.

CR

[Ariovistus Maximus]

In my experience, most people with large amounts of firearms tend to know a lot about using them. Indeed, knowing how to use them and taking them to the range is the appeal of owning many firearms.

Yes.

The people who are most afraid of guns have hardly even touched one before.

Quite simple, really. Ignorance of anything usually leads you to be cautious or even scared of it.

Also, people have taken Hollywood and mainstream media hook, line, and sinker.

People with guns do NOT behave like Bruce Willis. People are so saturated with television that they actually start to believe it.

And do you know why shootings are in the news?

Because they're relatively rare!!! Do you wonder why they don't televise every automotive death? Because there are so many! The news shows you what is unusual because it will capture your interest.

So they won't tell you about the 1000s of car accidents this year; they'll tell you about the 100-odd people that have been murdered with "assault" weapons this year.

And they don't very often mention any of the approximately 20000 people who use guns in home defense (in the US) annually.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Another way in which the "well-regulated" doctrine could be upheld is by offering further classes on irregular warfare. ...

Ironically, this will never happen because the government is too scared that such things would weaken its control over the people.

As far as gun classes, why don't they standardize them? Almost like driver's ed.

Of course, if people knew more about guns, they wouldn't be swayed so easily by the mind-numbing spam put out by news services...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Once again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

[Tribesman]

And again (moving away from the revolution) I remind you all that the Japanese avoided an invasion of Continental U.S. because so many people carried guns. That is only 60-some years ago. ;)

Thats another myth. The Japanese never had the logistical capabilty to even attempt such an invasion.
But apart from that nugget a decent post Maximus .
One question though , did Brazil defeat the one of the most powerful nations in the 1940s ? Or was its actual contribution pretty negligable since it had the aid of several global superpowers?
Bit like the militia isn't it.
Oh and just curious . Why are your approximate annual home defence figures only a miniscule tiny fraction of those which Rabbit frequently has claimed occur.

[KukriKhan]

Thats another myth.

Not to interrupt, but as a side-point, I think you 'misunderestimate' the value of "myth". Myth does not always = Lie.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Thats another myth. The Japanese never had the logistical capabilty to even attempt such an invasion.
But apart from that nugget a decent post Maximus .

Hmmm; I guess we get into epistemology a bit there because we seem to doubt each others' sources of knowledge.

One question though , did Brazil defeat the one of the most powerful nations in the 1940s ? Or was its actual contribution pretty negligable since it had the aid of several global superpowers?
Bit like the militia isn't it.

This is a skillful use of comparison on your part, however it is rather inconsistent:

The US had no other allies beyond perhaps those who sympathized with their cause. No other major nation did anything.

Also, the war was FOUGHT in the US, and the US INITIATED the war.

In 1776, it was the US (let's say for example, 20th overall in the global scale of military capacity), and France (2nd at the very best, and I wouldn't necessarily rate France over Prussia or Russia without a lot of research).


Now, to the comparison:

Brazil declared war in 1944 I think, well after the outcome was largely decided. i.e., after they didn't have to worry about being punished for siding against Germany (no offence Brazilians).

Also, there was no fighting that I've ever heard of that occurred in S. America that was directly related to WWII.

So Brazil was completely out of the fighting; obviously a massive inconsistency.

Lastly, Brazil fought alongside 45 other countries, including the US, GB, USSR, France, China, India, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Greece, Norway, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Poland, the Philippines, and Italy (switched sides in '44 or '45).

The Axis Powers consisted of Germany, Italy, Japan, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland, and Siam. Most of these had been defeated already by the time of Brazil's entry.

Therefore, making this comparison is like saying that sleeping in a garage makes you a car.

Oh and just curious . Why are your approximate annual home defence figures only a miniscule tiny fraction of those which Rabbit frequently has claimed occur.

Because government would rather scan for aliens, whine about carbon emissions, and kow-tow to terrorists than fulfill its roll of protecting its citizens?

Beats me.

[Tribesman]

Hmmm; I guess we get into epistemology a bit there because we seem to doubt each others' sources of knowledge.

The eastern plans never encompassed anything beyond the Western Aleutians , Hawai and Johnson island were included as possible outposts for a while but in reality were well beyond the Japanese capabilities for them to be remotely sustainable .

The US had no other allies beyond perhaps those who sympathized with their cause. No other major nation did anything.

Ah but they did , France and Spain were assisting them from the very start

[Reverend Joe]

Once again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

I find it amusing that two bizarre magicians have said some of the most intelligent stuff I have ever heard.

[Major Robert Dump]

I find it amusing that two bizarre magicians have said some of the most intelligent stuff I have ever heard.

Penn & Teller did like a lot of "pundits" and got their foot in the door by being entertainers, then once they had a fan base, started in with the politics and investigative journalism.

Penn and Tellers "bull****" series is actually one of the most consistent, entertaining, politically incorrect programs I have ever see. They call a spade a spade, even if I don't always agree with them. I do, however, feel they have a bit of libertarian tilt, which really turns me on. I particulalry liked their program on PETAs hypocrisy, alternative medicine and the green movement.

On a side note, they ruined my honeymoon. There we were, in the hotel room, my wife never having seen an episode, and i see one is coming on so I convince her to watch it with me. Turns out to be the episode that argues porn is not bad....first 10 minutes about 5000 breasts and lots of talk of cheap sex etc.....had to turn the channel...wife hates me.....

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Ah but they did , France and Spain were assisting them from the very start

Just exactly when do you consider the war started, and what are your specifics for "assisting"? I think that's part of the hang-up. I don't think the French and Spanish had much to do with Lexington & Concord, though by Breed's Hill we may have been purchasing arms and powder from them (which was not a complete charity on their part).

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Ah but they did , France and Spain were assisting them from the very start

Ummm, to be honest, I was expecting a little more than that...

I think you need to give a little more of an argument to prove your point.

A few bucks and a nice word doesn't constitute assistance from the very start in my book. ;)

I'm talking MILITARY INTERVENTION here. I don't really feel like doing a study on how much $$$ the US received from Fr. and Sp., but if you keep using that as your thesis, I guess I'll have to...

But I guarantee you that money received negated the need for and value of civilians with guns, which is the crux of your argument. ;)