Private Gun Ownership

[KrazyHorse]

Firearms are the right of every citizen of a democratic nation

This is blatantly untrue. There are a number of democratic nations in which the possession of a firearm cannot even come close to being construed as a right. Compared to the US, Canada has far more restrictive gun laws, but even we are relatively permissive compared to most developed countries. The UK, for example, has extraordinarily restrictive gun laws and a correspondingly low rate of firearms ownership.

. The only thing, that keeps us from total government tyranny is our right to bear and keep arms.

This is just plain nonsense. The thought that modern governments are intimidated by the private arms of their citizens is laughable on its face.

[Space05us]

This is just plain nonsense. The thought that modern governments are intimidated by the private arms of citizens is laughable on its face.

No wai! It kept us out of Afghanistan, um, wait I mean Iraq....um

But surely you saw how all of those guns in Afghanistan stabilized the region? They had a peaceful, democratic nation before we invaded!

Besides we have militias here in the states that are, as we speak, preparing to overthrow the government...since the formation of the union. Their guns are empowering them to radically change nothing!

[Felch]

This is just plain nonsense. The thought that modern governments are intimidated by the private arms of their citizens is laughable on its face.

You'd have to look long and hard for a totalitarian regime that allowed people to own guns like in the US.

Are guns effective against regular forces? No, obviously the army would just blow your militia to pieces with artillery. But you don't have to fight the army directly. I've mentioned before (to some people's horror) that you can use guns to murder postal workers, school teachers, mayors, etc. Strike at the local authorities and you strike at the government. It was part of the Viet Cong's strategy, and it was pretty damn effective.

So would it be like the RevWar, fighting redcoats and ****? No. It would be like Vietnam. And people would have to think long and hard about whether it was worth it to fight the power, if it meant hundreds of thousands being killed in reprisals.

[KrazyHorse]

You'd have to look long and hard for a totalitarian regime that allowed people to own guns like in the US.

a) Allowing private gun ownership to the extent that the US does is exceptional for ALL industrialized (broad sense) countries, not just free ones

b) My feeling is that the chain of causation runs the other way...

[Lorizael]

You'd have to look long and hard for a totalitarian regime that allowed people to own guns like in the US.

Are guns effective against regular forces? No, obviously the army would just blow your militia to pieces with artillery. But you don't have to fight the army directly. I've mentioned before (to some people's horror) that you can use guns to murder postal workers, school teachers, mayors, etc. Strike at the local authorities and you strike at the government. It was part of the Viet Cong's strategy, and it was pretty damn effective.

So would it be like the RevWar, fighting redcoats and ****? No. It would be like Vietnam. And people would have to think long and hard about whether it was worth it to fight the power, if it meant hundreds of thousands being killed in reprisals.

And I've said before that all this means is that gun ownership would only prevent ***** tyrants from coming to power in America. Any tyrant with real balls would just bomb anybody connected to a terrorist act against the government.

[KrazyHorse]

Strike at the local authorities and you strike at the government. It was part of the Viet Cong's strategy, and it was pretty damn effective.

I don't think you understand my point. It is NOT that private gun ownership would prove to be totally ineffective in resisting an obviously totalitarian regime.

The point is that movement towards totalitarianism is a process, not a single step. What's keeping the US (for example) from moving towards totalitarianism (cue "but it is...") is a complex of traditions, institutions, attitudes, laws etc. THESE are the real safeguards against totalitarianism. Not the ownership of guns. If somehow these protections broke down tomorrow then the private ownership of guns wouldn't stop a totalitarian state from arising. They might aid in overthrowing such a totalitarian state after years and years of guerrilla warfare. There are no datapoints in the modern age, though, so even that is pure speculation.

[Felch]

You guys are totally right. Guns really aren't a practical tool until the game is already lost. But once you reach that point, you're better off armed than not. ******* goons of a tyrant will always prefer terrorizing peaceful non-violent protesters over rednecks with hunting rifles.

[rah]

IMO, it all comes down to the willingness of the military to fire upon it's own citizens. If the citizens have guns, I think it's more likely to happen.

But having said that, I think people should be allowed to own guns. (the key is under what restrictions) For me, the more restrictions the better.

[Patroklos]

The point is that movement towards totalitarianism is a process, not a single step. What's keeping the US (for example) from moving towards totalitarianism (cue "but it is...") is a complex of traditions, institutions, attitudes, laws etc.

One of these would be private gun ownership.

[Lorizael]

One of these would be private gun ownership.

Great Britain has incredibly stringent gun control laws and has been steadily moving away from totalitarianism for the past eight centuries. How important is private gun ownership in all this?

[Patroklos]

As I said above, gun ownership is one of many things that keep tyrants at bay. We are not the UK, they are not us. Nobody said all the controls had to be the same.

That being said, if any Brown Shirts come running through my neighborhood dragging Catholics/red heads/goth kids/Eagles fans/whatever the favorite flavor is the next time around they will find it far more difficult to do it here than in the UK

[Lorizael]

But given that gun ownership is one of many such controls, and that its influence is questionable at best (given the example of GB and other western European countries), and that gun ownership also leads to a **** load of gun violence, wouldn't you believe that it may be possible to do away with that particular control in favor of having fewer dead people?

[KrazyHorse]

One of these would be private gun ownership.

That doesn't make any sense, and if you'd bothered to think about it you would have realized that. Gun ownership may well be a right which tradition etc. protects from encroachment, but there is no reasonable mechanism by which, in the context of modern countries, gun ownership protects against totalitarian tendencies.

An example of a tradition/right which is both protected and helps to protect is freedom of speech. Speech is used to call attention to worrying tendencies in government actions. On the other hand, armed resistance against government actions in developed countries leads rather swiftly to repression, and this repression is generally accepted by the public.

[KrazyHorse]

As I said above, gun ownership is one of many things that keep tyrants at bay. We are not the UK, they are not us. Nobody said all the controls had to be the same.

That being said, if any Brown Shirts come running through my neighborhood dragging Catholics/red heads/goth kids/Eagles fans/whatever the favorite flavor is the next time around they will find it far more difficult to do it here than in the UK

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.

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.

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.

[Patroklos]

[quote]

But given that gun ownership is one of many such controls, and that its influence is questionable at best (given the example of GB and other western European countries), and that gun ownership also leads to a **** load of gun violence, wouldn't you believe that it may be possible to do away with that particular control in favor of having fewer dead people?

Are you willing to adopt some of the various state powers the UK government has that the US doesn't in trade?

That doesn't make any sense, and if you'd bothered to think about it you would have realized that. Gun ownership may well be a right which tradition etc. protects from encroachment, but there is no reasonable mechanism by which, in the context of modern countries, gun ownership protects against totalitarian tendencies.

As I stated, it certainly makes mob violence against general society, a method used by every notable fascist flavored totalitarian wannabe for instance, less of a palatable option.

An example of a tradition/right which is both protected and helps to protect is freedom of speech.

You have not provided anything compelling to prove that gun ownership has no effectivness against the rise of totalitarianism besides simply saying so. WHY is private gun ownership not a guard, however efficient, against tyranny? I am sure you have an explaination, what is it?