Guns and freedom

[GePap]

Let me begin by saying that I am not opposed to the second ammendment, though if the government has the right to limit all other 20 odd ammendments to the constitution, if it can regulte freedom of religion and speech, then it can damn well also regulate guns. if there are things I can't say for national scurity,then there are guns we can't own for th same reason.

What i have a fundamental problem with is the argument that 'guns keep us free': you have all heard it, maybe said it yourselfs: Dictators have gun control, no Holocaust if the Jews had guns, so forth and so on. Well, i think this is all crap, for several reasons:

First of all, many of the assumptions behind this argument are idiotic: No regime exists without support from some group in the population. 32% f germans voted for Hitler, and 4 million men were brownshirts. the Soviets came to power aftre a long civil war; someone had to fight in the Red Army... all modern dictators all have a certain group of the populaion that is their base. These people live under a dictatorship, yes, but they still have power over other groups, usually bigger groups that they fear, and thse people also gain tangible benefits from the dictator. A minor example. I lived in Panama under te Noriega regime. things in Panama were simple and small scale, but it is still a good example. Anyone in Panama could get a gun under the Norega regime. So, how come it was in power? well, because it had the loyalty of the army and police, but also, it had the backing of many poor who bought into the populist and nationalistic arguments of the regime. Most oponnents, middle class people, were far too comfortable to risk life and property in any active revolt. Thus, even while anyone could be armed, no revolts.

So, what about bigger dictatorships? Well, why did war in yugoslavia break out so fast and easily? were did all these guns come from, if no one in a dictatorship can have them? They cam from the fact that the Tito regime had instituted militias and handed out hundreads of thousands of rifles and assault rifles: not handgun, like many american gunowners, but weapons of greatr value in war. yet did these armed militiamen attack the gov.? No, any more than militias armed by Iraq seek to overthrow Saddam, manily cause the militia are part of the people who support the regime. Not everyone seeks democracy, specially if they fear it, and giving weapons to many is no solution.

The other importrant fact is that an armed populace, without support from the military or a foreign power, will not win. Even back in the Revolution, this was not true. fine, militias could ambush columns or hold strong positions early in the war, but when the british came full force, it was the continental army, not militias, that did the bulk of winning. And the great victory at Yorktown could not have happened without the French fleet to stop british reeinforcements or a withdral to NY, and I have not even mentioned the siege train and 5000 troops France also contributed at the time. it was not an amed citzentry, but a professional force, that beat the other professional force. If the US became trully dictatorial, a bunch of idiots with M-16 would not beat the US army. To think so is to also think that those Iraqi Militias will decimate our armoured formations and shoot down our aircraft.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

This would not happen with gun control.

[Stefu]

Guns don't overthrow tyrants, people overthrow tyrants.

[Lincoln]

In the United States the government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people and for the people". It is a matter of principle really. If "the" government insists on having the arms while the people are disarmed then there is a lack of trust by both sides. This is absurd if the people really are the government. In effect though whichever side has the tanks etc. has the power but if the population is held in check by tanks the idea of a free people is absurd. Taking guns from law abiding people is simply a sign of a power grab by those in power who resent the power of the people.

[Ned]

While I may be fuzzy on details here, but one of the reasons that Switzerland stayed out of WWII is becuase it had an armed populace that could be mobilized into a significant fighting force on a moments notice.

I suspect the only reason we could have revolted against the English in the first place was because we had an armed populace. I also suspect that most units in the army were equipped, at least initially by soldiers who brought their own guns.

The Texan revolt: the same.

During the first 90% of Rome, the populace was armed. During emergencies, Rome could always raise new armies at an amazing rate to plug the gaps, so to speak. But once they banned private ownership of weapons, Romans losses could not be replaced easily. Neither could the populace resist the barbarians who bypassed or destroyed the frontier army.

One of the last things the Brits did before the start of the Revolution was order the people of Massachusetts to turn in their arms. This was an act of tryanny.

While the United States is in no danger of being overrun by barbarians, we have areas in the country which are virtually lawless. I am sure, because I used to live in one of these areas, that ordinary citizens are in fact armed for self protection.

Only in areas of good government, where there is law and order, are privately held guns not needed. This describes the United States as a whole, and indeed most of the West.

But let us not forget the lessons of history. Times could change.

[GePap]

First of all, this is not meant to say: no guns, its meant to say that thinking that all you need to be free is guns is a huge fallicy. Limits on the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 1st amendments are far greater threats to freedom than lmits on the 2nd.

Ned: if you are right about Englad, why did it happen then, at that point in atime, and not another? and who won the English civil war? The New Army, a regular force created by the parliment, and again, it was a civil war, so many english fought for the King and for 'tyranny', much as 20% of the colonist in America backed Britian, not the revolution, and a good 20-25% more simply did nothing. Switzerland stayed out because no one had the need to invade. the Nazis got far more out of keeping switzerland free than taking it over, like a good place to hide their assets behind independent swiss banking rules. And again, dictators can also arm the population for their won protection.

I also don't intend to get into the 'guns keep us same from crime' bit. which i also find idiotic. I would recommend " Bowling for Columbine". Moore is not a subtle filmaker, but it is still a great movie on the subject.

[Stefu]

During the first 90% of Rome, the populace was armed.

And they bravely rose against tyrants and defeated them all! Hooray!

[loinburger]

The 2nd amendment isn't a guarantee that people will be free, but it does help insure that those in power will have second thoughts before they use force against the populace. For a hypothetical, if Jerry Falwell (and others of like mind) gained a significant voice in the national government, they'd still have to think twice before they began arbitrarily arresting homosexuals/abortionists/atheists/whatever for fear of armed resistance. The 2nd amendment is sort of a last resort check on the government's power -- the "I was only following orders" mentality probably works a lot better when rounding up citizens for re-education (or whatever) than when using deadly force on citizens, i.e. the 2nd amendment raises the ante considerably for the goon squads.

From this regard the current restrictions on the 2nd amendment don't make much sense -- if you want to reduce crime but still give citizens their right to bear arms, then you ought to restrict handguns long before you restrict assault weapons. Johnny-Joe Mugger isn't going to hold somebody up with an M-16, they're going to hold them up with a saturday night special. Johnny-Joe Militiaman isn't going to fight the ATF with a handgun, he's going to use an M-16.

[Ned]

Stefu, In the last century of the empire, the emperorship became hereditary and the emperors became increasingly tryannical. They supported themselves against the people by a barbarian guard. They needed to disarm the people.

Prior to that time, the emperors were men of the people, simple soldiers who were elected by their troops (and confirmed by the Senate) for their military competence. There was no alienation between the leadership and the people. There was no tryanny and no need to disarm the people.

[Ned]

GePap, I am not totally familiar with how Cromwell raised and armed his army. But, could it be that the ordinary Englishman brought his own sword, shield and pike?

[JCG]

People should have guns if they so wish, BUT guns shouldn't be handed out freely without restrictions like background checks, psychological checks, tracking etc.

In fact, I still don't understand why someone would be seriously opposed to "bullet fingerprint tracking" or whatever the name was for that particular proposal....Would have been immensely useful in situations such as the current sniper attacks.

[Ramo]

While I do support the 2nd Amendment, the problem with the logic that lack of guns allow tyranny is that if, for instance, the US gov't tried to lock me up without any reason, I'd be giving it a reason to lock me up (and no doubt other people who shared my beliefs) if I tried to defend myself.

Guns are irrelevant without collective action, and gun restrictions wouldn't be that much of a problem in that case.

[OzzyKP]

excellent points gepap, I too have wrestled with those questions. Obviously a tyrant will not emerge tommarrow and get on CNN saying "well i'm in control now and you, you and you, are gonna die" obviously tyranny is a bit more subtle though no less deadly, and tyrants do indeed have the support of the people, or at least some of them. So lets say even a majority of Americans were to support a tyranical leader. Lets say only 20% of Americans had the gumption to actively resist.

As has been noted, the ones in control under any form of government will be the people more or less. I would assume people would follow some leader promising great things and not truly realize what they were getting themselves into. To use the Falwell example "those evil democrats are trying to destroy the very fabric of our society and have put to death millions of innocent children, so the only way for decent americans to protect ourselves and make sure our way of life continues is to once and for all get rid of the evil, anti-american democratic party" or something like that.

So if there was a battle of a majority against an armed, resistant 20% minority, sure it would be difficult for the 20% with hunting rifles to topple the tyranical forces of Jerry Falwell (hehe) on their own, the battle itself would be a fight for the hearts and minds of the American people, and the hearts and minds of the government supporters. Sure the government could carpet bomb areas of suspected militia activity, but would the government supporters stand for that? No. Armed resistance would force the hand of the government to reveal its true character and truly murderous, tyranical action against those 20% would win converts to the resistance.

What garuntee that the tyrannical government would really cross that line in the mind of their supporters and become too violent against the resistance? Well I'd imagine the resistance would have to fight like the Vietnamise, guerrla warfare, but trickier. The problem with Vietnam was the US Miltary couldn't really tell who was with them or who was against them. The people cheering them when they entered a villiage would try to blow them up the next day. So after a bit, out of frustration the military ended up doing the terrible things we've heard of like burning villiages and killing "civilians". If I ran a car dealership and was the model Falwell suporter by day, and blew up military instalations by night, I would be tough to identify, find, and catch. The military would have to resort to more heavy handed actions, thus loosing the support of their supporters.

And also don't think the army would be blind servents of the new regime. If they were ordered to carry out especially severe actions against the resisters I imagine many would refuse. The government will of course try to propagandize the people and the army, but shooting a guy from Milwuake I'd imagine would be pretty difficult. So I'd imagine some of that 20% would be sections of the miltary who would break away, thus the resistance would have a few jets, tanks, etc.

But of course the initial resistance needs to be there for everything else to be put into motion. And 20% of the population is not going to actively oppose a modern regime with kitchen knifes and baseball bats. To empower them, they need some form of real weaponary, guns.

Under this interpretation, that Thomas Paines will win us independence, not George Washingtons, but that without the Washingtons and without the weapons to support the Washingtons, that the Thomas Paines will never succeed.

Just some more thoughts and ramblings on the issue, take it for what you will.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo
While I do support the 2nd Amendment, the problem with the logic that lack of guns allow tyranny is that if, for instance, the US gov't tried to lock me up without any reason, I'd be giving it a reason to lock me up (and no doubt other people who shared my beliefs) if I tried to defend myself.

Guns are irrelevant without collective action, and gun restrictions wouldn't be that much of a problem in that case.

I totally agree. A bunch of people with guns means nothing: an organized group with guns is a minimal requirement. This is why the second ammendment specifically mentions militias: as I have said, I don't think they would be able to do much against a modern military, specially one with WMD (why couldn't a dictatorial US create large stocks of chemical weapons and use them indiscriminitelly? Gas any area resisting: what do militias do?) But today, all these 'gun-nuts' argue that all that counts is having the 'right' to buy fifty handguns a month..... Todays modern america, even with twice the weapons and a AK-47 in every home, is still more suceptible to tyranny that at any other time. individuals don't give a damn about their gov. (this election, no matter how much flag-wavving there is, voter turnout wil be patheticall low most likely), only about small issue. An apathetic, selfish population is the best one for any moves against democracy- they won't fight back.

May I add that the greatest movements for social change and increase of civic rights by civilians in this century have all been relatively non-violent (the movement in India, Civil rights, the fight against apartheid), won by argument and strikes, not force. Examples from 1640, or even 1776, mean nothing anymore, with the power the state can wieldand with the pernicious power of press and nationalism (any armed group become terrorists, enemies of the state. Whom will the mass of the middle class back? Terrorist, according to the media, or the government? Its your country damn it, you can brook treason!) People have too many mortages, credit card payments and so forth. were would an insurgency be fought? what happens to third party private property? I find the idea of a rebellion in the modern US hard to fathom, not with cable bills, and college loans, and the mortage to pay, and food to buy from the supermarket.

With all of this, still people scream that guns wil keep tem free, but go ahead, spy on me, my neighbors, deny citizens fair trials, because as long as i can shoot at the cops, I am free.......

[Dr Strangelove]

How free do you think the people of the DC / MD / northern VA area feel right about now? Most outdoor activities in the area have been cancelled. The Guardian Angels have taken to patroling gas stations.

Oh, the report that the sniper was "olive skinned" contrived by a guy who wanted his Warhol time.