If we had more guns, the Omaha mall shooting may not have happened

[Kuciwalker]

Asher

Vesayen shutting the **** up

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vesayen

How many despots in the last 60 years, when coming to power immediatly banned private possesion of firearms?

As far as I can think, NONE.

because guns are only a danger to the powers that be if the people with them ARE ORGANIZED. Radom people with guns are not a danger to any system that has the support of significant sections of society, who would themselves be armed, and willing to fight for you.

[Vesayen]

@ Wezil

People laugh and believe that their society can never collapse into despotism, till the day it happens.

The world never expected the rise of facism in Italy or Germany. Soviet Russia banned gun ownership.

If you told me a year ago that in a year Musharif would declare martial law in Pakistan I would of openly mocked you.

It happens.

We have a president who ignores the constitution regularly and a legislature who are spinless and simply do not care about protecting the constituion. Our society is not as far from facism as many think. If the threat is ever serious, on that day, you'll be DAMN glad we have more guns per person in America then any country in the world.

No, I do not personally own a gun nor am I even a member of the NRA but when I finally finish with grad school, I plan to rectify the first issue above. Believing in the constituion and demanding it be followed is not foolishness, it is patriotism.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vesayen
People laugh and believe that their society can never collapse into despotism, till the day it happens.

The world never expected the rise of facism in Italy or Germany. Soviet Russia banned gun ownership.

And private citizens could own guns in both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union in general banned private ownership.

If you told me a year ago that in a year Musharif would declare martial law in Pakistan I would of openly mocked you.

It happens.

If you are dumb enough to think that Pakistan is not awash in guns, then there is no point in discussing anything with you.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Elok
This is 2007. Guns don't discourage a tyrannical government half so much as a politically active populace does. If a bunch of old-fashioned minutemen took to the streets to fight the power, it wouldn't be their handheld rifles that saved them from being run over by tanks, shot full of holes by helicopter-mounted miniguns or simply tear-gassed to drive them away. It would be the genuine patriotism or goodwill of the people charged with firing the guns or driving the tanks or releasing the gas.

Even a despot in the U.S. would be unwilling to roll the heavy hardware out against civilians, it would be impossible for them to maintain any semblance of public support, which they would need in part, at least initially.

Incidentally, I believe we should legalize things like shoulder mounted stinger launchers and other shoulder mounted launchers exactly for the reason above. I expect to get a lot of flack(pun intended) for the above statement.


GePap: Numerous despots throughout the last 60 years banned private ownership of firearms immediatly upon coming to power or almost immediatly after anyway.

I did not say Pakistan is not awash in guns, nor did I say they were banned in Germany or Italy, read what I said. My point was, any society no matter how apparently stable, could collapse into despotism, especially on the occurence of some emergency, such as, Pakistan, the most recent country to do so(no real emergency in that case though).

[Elok]

Originally posted by Vesayen
We have a president who ignores the constitution regularly and a legislature who are spinless and simply do not care about protecting the constituion. Our society is not as far from facism as many think. If the threat is ever serious, on that day, you'll be DAMN glad we have more guns per person in America then any country in the world.

...do you actually believe this? Let's run through a thought experiment here. Suppose Bush declares himself President-for-life tomorrow and, due to some sort of glue-sniffing fad in the barracks, has the support of the armed forces. You and a bunch of people you know have guns. What are you going to do?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Vesayen
The world never expected the rise of facism in Italy or Germany. Soviet Russia banned gun ownership.

Mussolini came to power using tens of thousands of armed fascists. A private army also helped Hitler to power. Lenin too.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Vesayen
@ Wezil

I laugh at your original premise (more guns = less shootings) which you seem to have abandoned in favour of the "protection from my government argument" thinking it is somehow better.

Let's see your "armed citizenry" defend against tanks and air power. You're deluded. As Elok pointed out the power is in popular opinion but this of course requires you to say enough is enough. Your country hasn't reached that point yet (current Dem contenders included).

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Elok


...do you actually believe this? Let's run through a thought experiment here. Suppose Bush declares himself President-for-life tomorrow and, due to some sort of glue-sniffing fad in the barracks, has the support of the armed forces. You and a bunch of people you know have guns. What are you going to do?

Impossible hypothetical. There is no way in hell he would have the support of the armed forces.

Unless there was a SERIOUS emergency, such as the detonation of a nuclear weapon on U.S. soil, a major world power declaring war on us etc, that could not happen.

My point with Bush is that the constitution is already being ignored today by the executive and legislature, so who knows how far off facism could be?

If you want to modify your scenario to something like "Suppose 10 years down the road the president sets himself up as president for life and PART of the armed forces supports him" I will answer that. If you craft your hypothetical to be a little more plausible, I will give it a serious answer.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vesayen
GePap: Numerous despots throughout the last 60 years banned private ownership of firearms immediatly upon coming to power or almost immediatly after anyway.

Names would be nice.

I did not say Pakistan is not awash in guns, nor did I say they were banned in Germany or Italy, read what I said. My point was, any society no matter how apparently stable, could collapse into despotism, especially on the occurence of some emergency, such as, Pakistan, the most recent country to do so(no real emergency in that case though).

And widespread gun ownership will do nothing to stop the coming despotism anywhere, Pakistan being a good example.

As for your notion that a regime will no use heavy weapons to subjugate the populace, if it feels like its survival as a regime calls for it, it will do it in a heartbeat.

[Elok]

You cease to be civilians the moment you take up arms against his regime, Ves. Civilians are by definition not toting rifles and shoulder-mounted stinger missile launchers (which, even assuming they were legal, are a bit expensive for many people to have lying about the house with sufficient ammo and the training to use them effectively). Armed civilians are just irregular infantry, and you give the powers that be a perfect excuse to shoot you down by seditious conduct during America's War on Terror. Or if they don't feel like that, they can infiltrate your cells and liquidate them, which I imagine they're a lot better at doing when they speak the language and understand the culture of the people involved.

[Kuciwalker]

Guys, why are you actually talking to Ves? Surely everyone noticed long ago he's just stupid and there's no point.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Wezil


I laugh at your original premise (more guns = less shootings) which you seem to have abandoned in favour of the "protection from my government argument" thinking it is somehow better.

Let's see your "armed citizenry" defend against tanks and air power. You're deluded. As Elok pointed out the power is in popular opinion but this of course requires you to say enough is enough. Your country hasn't reached that point yet (current Dem contenders included).

I did not abandon it. The discussion shifted, no one else raised any more objections to the more guns = less shootings justification, so I responded to their responses.

Armed citizens would not have to defend against tanks and airpower. In the U.S. in a "president for life" scenario, they would initially need at least SOME of the public support to stay in power. They would also need the support of an (our)army of citizen soldiers. If President Bob declares himself president for life and the Colorado govenor and state assembly says "No freaking way", then El Presidente bombs colorado

A. There would be MASSIVE defection in the army
B. El Presidente would loose whatever public support he had.

This means the citizenry needs to be armed enough to prevent men on the ground with guns and limited armor from simply pushing them around. There are a couple of states where this might be viable today.... and while I... loathe Texas, it might be the best example.


I have to run for a few hours, i'll be back in the evening to respond to new posts.

[Elok]

Well, if he doesn't have the army behind him, who gives a rat's ass about you and your buddies with semi-automatic rifles and handguns? This is not 1780. Cutting-edge military technology is not available to the common man, and if it were legal he could never afford it, and if he were given it he wouldn't know how to use it.

[GePap]

Jesus, so by your own "thinking", what prevents despotism in the US is not having an armed citizenship, but political resistance and having an army that would not betray its constitutional duties.