US Gun Laws

[Elok]

Also our troops not being supplied with proper armor, the meddling from Iran and other foreign powers, the massive sectarian violence, our failure to understand the local politics, the fact that we're ultimately planning to leave the nasty country...for the record, did Saddam let his people "bear arms," and if not where are all those AKs coming from?

Xpost

[The Mad Monk]

I think one AK47 was permitted per household, in general.

[Elok]

When I say aggressive action, I don't mean stand up fights with militia digging trenches and being blown out by the Army. I mean finding out that your neighbor is deployed in some other state to suppress the rebellion, so you break into his house and murder his family. I mean kidnapping and executing any collaborators, pacifists, or fence-sitters. You have to make sure to murder and intimidate moderates, so that compromise becomes impossible.

Really a successful rebellion is a cruel and terrible thing, I think it's far beyond what you guys are thinking of. Pistols and other small arms play an important part in a termite war like the Algerian War. Rebellions are at their most effective when they're at their most brutal.

That legitimizes equal violence from the state, in addition to surrendering anything resembling a moral high ground. The state is much better equipped for violence. You're going to run out of people, and be left with a ruined country to boot. And in the chaos of an actual war, you can get all the small arms, or large arms, you want. They can be looted from police stations, purchased from opportunist criminals or meddling foreign agents, smuggled by contacts in the military. That some people (who may or may not be on the rebellious side in the first place) had basic weaponry beforehand is moot.

[Elok]

Oh, and I just Wiki'ed the Algerian War, seems it was a rebellion against French colonial occupation, along with a civil war against loyalist natives. The government in charge was a hamhanded foreign democracy--it wasn't much different from Iraq. Do you have anything that might be comparable to a hypothetical U.S. rebellion?

[Felch]

I recognize that it's morally abhorrent and likely to fail, but it's a strategy that I think gives the greatest chance of success.

[Elok]

But how does the initial, legal public ownership of small guns matter to the end result?

[Al B. Sure!]

Aren't most revolutions just common people, though? What about the Cuban Revolution, for example?

During this time, Castro's forces remained quite small in numbers, sometimes less than 200 men, while the Cuban army and police force numbered between 30,000 and 40,000 in strength. Yet nearly every time the army fought against the revolutionaries, the army was forced to retreat. The Cuban military proved remarkably ineffective.

or the decisive battle...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Santa_Clara

340 guerrillas defeated 3,900 Cuban troops, 10 tanks, B-26 bombers, and an armored train. Batista promptly fled the country.

[Felch]

If you want a situation where a U.S. style democracy is beaten by domestic militias, well it doesn't exist. Assuming that the government is fair and decent, like we have right now, there's no real reason for a rebellion. Things aren't bad enough to warrant violence. But our situation could always change, and when it changes the first thing they'll do is make it harder to arm yourself.

[Felch]

But how does the initial, legal public ownership of small guns matter to the end result?

On the scale that we have in the United States, with hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands, the government would face an impossible task in trying to round them all up.

[Mad Man]

The fundamental problem isn't guns them selves it's why there using them. People don't go on crazed shooting rampages or rob banks because there lives are perfect, they usually do it because of poverty, mental illness, and or provocation by there peers. Getting rid of guns would only (at best) cure the symptoms of the problem not cure it, it would be like trying to cure AIDS with aspirin.

[N35t0r]

You think that an impopular enough government to warrant insurrection won't face such a massive civil disturbance that guns would be irrelevant? And that it won't be caught beforehand and prevented in the first place?

[The Mad Monk]

But how does the initial, legal public ownership of small guns matter to the end result?

Securing explosives and other materiel.

[Elok]

If you want a situation where a U.S. style democracy is beaten by domestic militias, well it doesn't exist. Assuming that the government is fair and decent, like we have right now, there's no real reason for a rebellion. Things aren't bad enough to warrant violence. But our situation could always change, and when it changes the first thing they'll do is make it harder to arm yourself.

Well, no, I meant an actual rebellion against a native government that turned repressive for one reason or another. Whether they take away guns would depend a good deal on the character of the government in question. If they're of a particularly hard-right jingoist bent, for example, they might very well leave the gun situation as-is. It's helpful if, when paramilitary groups form, they have their own guns. It's like an extra, ultra-zealous police force with a predilection for smashing stuff!

Anyway, no, if they have any sense they'll whittle away at freedom of the press, warrants and such, and leave the stupid second amendment there to give you a false sense of security. After all, if you start actually snuffing officers with guns, it'll be that much easier to justify taking gun rights away--along with any other, more valuable ones.

On the scale that we have in the United States, with hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands, the government would face an impossible task in trying to round them all up.

No, I mean, it's not that hard to acquire firearms illegally, especially under civil war circumstances. Even in that ridiculous TN "battle," they looted an armory, and I have perfect faith that gangs would step forward to make extra cash as gun runners assuming foreign powers didn't step in.

[Elok]

Securing explosives and other materiel.

Brilliant. You could just, you know, bribe or talk over a local authority, sneak the stuff out without Big Brother even knowing it's gone. Then you'd have two advantages. Instead you want to shoot up a munitions depot or other secured location, call attention to yourself while you're small and vulnerable? I have grave doubts about this rebellion.

[The Mad Monk]

It's so much easier when there is an implied threat.

Like Capone said, "You can get so much more done with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone."