Private Gun Ownership

[KrazyHorse]

WHY is private gun ownership not a guard, however efficient, against tyranny?

??????????

Perhaps you aren't paying attention. I have stated that it has no effect CURRENTLY or any time in the MODERN ERA on government tendencies toward encroachment on the rights of individuals. In fact, the use of armed resistance by anything other than complete nutjobs presupposes that the government have slipped so far into tyranny that the bearing of arms cannot be reasonably construed as a guard against its appearance; merely a means to end it.

[Patroklos]

If, if, if. The fact is that the US has never even gotten CLOSE to that point in the modern era. Therefore, to postulate that personal firearms have helped to protect against government encroachment on rights is ridiculous.

You have absolutely no way of proving that the reason that we haven't isn't in part due to the daunting hurdle private gun ownership is. I obviously can't do the opposite. This tac is no good for either of us.

So you position is because there has been no overt challenge a the level private arms would be overtly helpful, we should remove that safeguard? How many other safeguards of various types have never been seriously challenged should we start stripping?

Political armed resistance to the government's will in the US hasn't been anything more than a fringe phenomenon for over half a century. On the other hand, the government is called to account for its actions every day by the law, by the press, by ordinary citizens' sense of what they believe to be the rights of the public. In addition, government officials themselves generally believe in the limitations of the rights of government to command the citizenry.

You have no way of attributing values to any of those also very effective deterents. So far you are just stating an unsupported opinions. Whether or not the citizenry has had to resort to private arms is irrelevant, the only relevant question is that were they to have to would it be effective? That answer is obviously yes. Do you think that the writers of the constitution were hoping the private arms of its citizens would be tested?

These are the dams which hold government encroachment back. Armed resistance is a hypothetical which is basically untested in the context of modern enforcement, and which is only plausible as a protection once all the other walls have fallen.

Exactly, and why do you imagine it was ever anything else but this?

[KrazyHorse]

Patty, please think it through: I am not claiming that, given the proper situation, personal arms might not help a citizenry regain control of an out-of-control government (though I am skeptical that success would be achieved via anything less than full-scale revolt).

What I am saying is that there is no reasonable way to construe the right to bear arms as an operational guard against tyranny. It is at best an unused contingency plan which has had no effect in the modern era on government policy.

[Patroklos]

Perhaps you aren't paying attention. I have stated that it has no effect CURRENTLY or any time in the MODERN ERA on government tendencies toward encroachment on the rights of individuals.

Please qualify your statment.

In fact, the use of armed resistance by anything other than complete nutjobs presupposes that the government have slipped so far into tyranny that the bearing of arms cannot be reasonably construed as a guard against its appearance; merely a means to end it.

It can in effect be a guard against both. It very well may be that nobody has ever contemplated an overt armed takeover because it is a ridiculous proposition on its face due to private gun ownership. We will never know one way of the other for sure, but it is obviously a very grave consideration someone even thinking in that direction would have to contend with.

And what is wrong with us have a safeguard at that extreme anyway? You seem to think that the various guards in the constitution in any way preempt each other. At no point does it say that speech or seperation of powers or private arms or anything else is our primary method. If one is working fine great, the others are still there if it ever stops working.

[KrazyHorse]

You have absolutely no way of proving that the reason that we haven't isn't in part due to the daunting hurdle private gun ownership is.

Yes, I do. Common ****ing sense. When the police attempt to enforce a law, no matter how unpopular, armed resistance is extraordinarily rare, is easily defeated, and is condemned by the average citizen.

If the government had been constrained by the threat of armed force then there would be numerous examples of at least somewhat successful resistance. There are not.

Your argument is akin to claiming that flush toilets have prevented the rise of the fourth reich.

[KrazyHorse]

Sometimes you're a vaguely reasonable person, patty.

This is not one of those times.

I'm not in the mood to get into a Floyd style argument with somebody so obviously out in lala land.

[Patroklos]

Patty, please think it through: I am not claiming that, given the proper situation, personal arms might not help a citizenry regain control of an out-of-control government (though I am skeptical that success would be achieved via anything less than full-scale revolt).

We are not really out of agreement KH, you simply see no value in maintaining a safeguard that has yet to be needed. I on the other hand see no harm in maintaining it in case it is ever required.

What I am saying is that there is no reasonable way to construe the right to bear arms as an operational guard against tyranny. It is at best an unused contingency plan which has had no effect in the modern era on government policy.

And I am also saying that there is really no way for you to know this (the deterrent factor anyway). You are assuming this. The simple fact is that there are many checks on such tyranny and there are many that have never been tested seriously; it is a tribute to the resiliency of the system in place.

[Patroklos]

Sometimes you're a vaguely reasonable person, patty.

This is not one of those times.

I'm not in the mood to get into a Floyd style argument with somebody so obviously out in lala land.

I know when it is easier for you to just declare your opinions the word of God than to argue when frustrated, and that you are a far more effective at insults than me, so I will happily disengage if that is the direction you feel yourself (obviously) headed

[KrazyHorse]

Seriously, Patty: you're arguing political philosophy from the position of "you can't prove me wrong and therefore my opinion is just as valid as yours". I've pointed out that armed resistance is far, far, far from a reasonable response to the level of encroachments the government manages to achieve. The viable threat of such resistance is almost as far from reality. Therefore personal guns have had no real effect on the maintenance of individual rights in the modern age.

If you want to continue to argue from out in left field then feel free. It's a useless exercise.

[Felch]

Guns are great because they make loud noises, and you can wreck **** from a distance.

Seriously, anybody who doesn't like guns should go out to a range and destroy **** for a little while. It's way better than golf.

[Timexwatch]

Guns are great because they make loud noises, and you can wreck **** from a distance.

Seriously, anybody who doesn't like guns should go out to a range and destroy **** for a little while. It's way better than golf.

I can shoot for free as long as there's ammo around, my Glock is free and working on your skills is as fun as hell!

[ricketyclik]

Of course we have the highest rates of firearm deaths. We have the most guns. We also have the highest rates of kicking ass and chewing bubble gum. What's the problem?

No problem here. Just so long as all you pro-gun crazies stay over there and keep killing each other, and not the rest of us.

[SlowwHand]

Don't act so pompous. It's not like murder doesn't exist everywhere. Does it really matter if it's a gun or a rock?

[ricketyclik]

Crime Statistics > Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country

# 24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people

# 43 Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

The US murder rate is 2.8 times greater than Australia's. You don't think the ease of murdering someone influences the amount it occurs?

PLUS, death by gunshot isn't necessarily murder.

[SlowwHand]

You're absolutely correct.