A tentative gun argument

[apdst]

To understand you have to have the appropriate context. NO ONE is advocating the overthrow of or a battle against 'the government'. We still elect our representatives, even if we as a nation do a piss poor job of being selective with who we send. The Constitution was never meant to provide a means of rebellion against an elected body. It IS meant to preserve the Constitution and freedoms we have. I ASSURE you...if we were to ever reach a point where the government and Constitution were abandoned, 120 million gun owners would make an oppressive force to contend with, even where we are talking rifles vs military might. You also have to extend the scenario out completely. IF there were a tyrannical force that attempted to seize control of the country, not only would they have to contend with the 'militia' but also with the state Guard and Reserve components. We as a people value our freedom (even where some would readily sacrifice it).

The 2nd amendment was very clear as to its intent. Citizens should have the ability to own MILITARY weapons for the defense of the nation. The 'understood' component is personal ownership of firearms for self defense and hunting. The 2nd Amendment wasn't a pro hunting amendment. I cant fathom the framers of this country EVER subjecting themselves and their families to the protective whims of others. Criminals have weapons and commit crimes. People have a right to defend themselves against those criminals.

If you are really interested in understanding us, look at the total picture. It took 10 minutes for police to respond in Connecticut. As per recent news articles we see the average police response time to emergency calls in Denver Colorado is 17 minutes. Citizens must not be sentenced to a lifetime of 'victim' status.

In addition to that, the wholesale slaughter of 120 million American citizens would spell the absolute doom of the government in control at that time.

What I find most hillarious about the arguments coming from the anti-gunners, is how they forget their own arguments against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how, if the government got into a shooting war with the gun owners of America, the gun owner faction wouldn't be 120 million anymore...it would grow into the hundreds of millions.

 

[VanceMack]

In addition to that, the wholesale slaughter of 120 million American citizens would spell the absolute doom of the government in control at that time.

What I find most hillarious about the arguments coming from the anti-gunners, is how they forget their own arguments against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how, if the government got into a shooting war with the gun owners of America, the gun owner faction wouldn't be 120 million anymore...it would grow into the hundreds of millions.

should there ever be such an oppressive force in this country...a tyrant using force to oppress and destroy the constitutional rights and freedoms of US citizens, I would hope those anti-gunners would wake the **** up and join the fight. Or...you know...bow and serve. Whatever they are most comfortable with.

 

[apdst]

If you were debating your position I'd like to ask you,

1) Since the advent of athe air planes tanks, and missiles how many conflicts have been won with them vs the "gun?" I'll give you an answer and you can try to correct it if you'd like. The answer is none.

2) While peaceful protests have changed governments and even removed some that is not the point of gun ownership in America. The point is a unarmed public is one a tyrant can kill - at will. Here
is another statistic for you - 300 million people have died since the founding of America at the hands of tyrannical governments - yet relatively few of them were Americans.

3) Your position is that guns should be banned from private ownership. You have a problem in that one since 80 million American's own guns, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say about 8 million
of them won't be peacefully giving them up.

Exactly right! Wars are won by infantry, not tanks and planes.

The anti-gunners are the same people that have argued that ad naseum and they don't even realize it.

 

[apdst]

should there ever be such an oppressive force in this country...a tyrant using force to oppress and destroy the constitutional rights and freedoms of US citizens, I would hope those anti-gunners would wake the **** up and join the fight. Or...you know...bow and serve. Whatever they are most comfortable with.

I'm convinced that most anti-gunners are the very people that would like to see this country become an American version of The Soviet Union and ultimately, that's their goal. So, no, I don't think they would stand up against such a government, but rather assist that government in it's oppression of the people.

I know there are people that will say, "that won't happen", but it happening right now in Syria and Egypt. It happened in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Russia, Poland, Chechoslavakia, Montenegro, Belerus, France, Austria, England, Italy, Serbia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Bosnia, Uganda, Argentina, El Salvador, Hondura, Columbia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Angola, hell the list in almost endless; basically 75% of the nations of the world. It's infantile to claim that there's no way that it can happen.

 

[VanceMack]

I'm convinced that most anti-gunners are the very people that would like to see this country become an American version of The Soviet Union and ultimately, that's their goal. So, no, I don't think they would stand up against such a government, but rather assist that government in it's oppression of the people.

I know there are people that will say, "that won't happen", but it happening right now in Syria and Egypt. It happened in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Russia, Poland, Chechoslavakia, Montenegro, Belerus, France, Austria, England, Italy, Serbia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Bosnia, Uganda, Argentina, El Salvador, Hondura, Columbia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Angola, hell the list in almost endless; basically 75% of the nations of the world. It's infantile to claim that there's no way that it can happen.

i think it is a true statement to say some are so wrapped up in their straight up ideological hatred (and lets face it...guns are only a component of that hatred) that they would gladly see that conversion. I think many are just looking for something...anything...that would help. They don't defend firearm ownership because they don't practice firearm ownership. I think I gets overlooked that more than a few liberals and democrats are gun owners and value those rights and freedoms as mug as anyone else. As for the extremists...I would certainly advocate they spend a few years living under that system which they believe they adore. Maybe they would find their very own Che.

 

[YoungConserv]

Interesting point. Yet I think that in realistic terms, your example doesn't hold up. The govt could easily just demolish the place with explosives. My argument rests on the fact that the modern arsenal goats came to possess essentially makes guns meaningless

I think what your ignoring us that any rebellion wouldn't be a large majority of American but a smaller terrorist like group that would hit specific people and buildings in protest of a tyrannical government. The carpet bombings you described could not take place with our the government turning the people against them. A current example would be Iraq where the might of the us military has been blunted by an enemy that is part of the civilian population.

 

[Chatter]

I think it's unlikely that US Soldiers or US Military Personnel would attack their own homeland or their own civilian population not matter what Goverment had to say on the matter.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

I would think that you as a citizen living in a country next to one that is still technically at war with yours, you would want to be armed. Because one of these days the DPRK isn't just going to be throwing a tantrum and actually resume the war.Or the US and ROK is going to get sick of the DPRK's **** and resume the war.

I assure you sir, that most South Korean males have handled a gun at least once, and South Korea retains the 2nd largest reserve force (out of a population of 50 million) in the world

 

[American]

I'm marveling at the civility of this thread. :thumbs:

 

[blaxshep]

I think it's unlikely that US Soldiers or US Military Personnel would attack their own homeland or their own civilian population not matter what Goverment had to say on the matter.

This is what the liberals fail to comprehend, when we talk of a 2nd amendment style revolution to take the country back the military has sworn to uphold the constitution and the people not the corrupt liberal State. It won't be the people vs the entire might of the US military.

 

[Jerry]

I'm marveling at the civility of this thread. :thumbs:

Because this thread died.

 

[blaxshep]

Because this thread died.

I just noticed your Sig. :lamo

 

[TurtleDude]

This is what the liberals fail to comprehend, when we talk of a 2nd amendment style revolution to take the country back the military has sworn to uphold the constitution and the people not the corrupt liberal State. It won't be the people vs the entire might of the US military.

and the targets won't be the military

 

[apdst]

I think it's unlikely that US Soldiers or US Military Personnel would attack their own homeland or their own civilian population not matter what Goverment had to say on the matter.

If it hadn't already happened, you may be right, but...

 

[polgara]

If it hadn't already happened, you may be right, but...

Good evening, apdst. :2wave:

During the Civil War, which I believe you are referring to, the North and the South had two different armies, but you are correct in stating that they did attack each other. We only have one military now. Under what conditions do you believe it could happen again?

 

[Surtr]

First, I would like to notify that I have had very few experience with the gun control debate, so my knowledge in this field is very limited. Please note that I live in a society where guns are very restricted, so my experiences will vary much from those who may be reading this, whom I presume to be mostly Americans.

I was stationed there for two years, so I'm familiar with the gun laws there. I never felt the need to carry in SK, because there was simply no life/limb/eye-sight threat present from the South Koreans (except on the road, lol). Honestly, I felt that the only threat to my personal safety from other people came from other Americans.

As I have never revealed my position before, my position is that guns should be banned except for the military and law and order personnel. That is the position my society is in, and I agree with it fullheartedly. I cannot understand the arguments about guns making a difference in somehow stalling a government. The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government. Also, there have been numerous cases where guns had no part in overthrowing a tyrannical government. In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal. Likewise I have observed democratic movements in numerous other locations such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and such. Even during the relatively recent Arab Spring, guns were rarely used.
I'm sure there are other statistics and arguments to refute mine, and I welcome them as I am a newbie in this area, yet I ask for politeness as a rule.
i've been researching for crime statistics between the US and SK, as well as other countries that bans or allows guns. I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.

I don't put any emphasis into the overthrowing the government nonsense, because that's all it is. The only way I can think of describing our love of firearms is that they have been deeply ingrained in our culture, from before we were an independent nation. I'd go more in depth, but I'm in a rush.

 

[apdst]

Good evening, apdst. :2wave:

During the Civil War, which I believe you are referring to, the North and the South had two different armies, but you are correct in stating that they did attack each other. We only have one military now. Under what conditions do you believe it could happen again?

Good evening, Polgara and thank you.

I was referring to events like the Dead Rabbits Riot, The Draft Riots, the labor riots in 1834, the Detroit race riot of 1943 and Reconstruction.

 

[Jerry]

Where did OP go?

 

[blaxshep]

I don't put any emphasis into the overthrowing the government nonsense, because that's all it is. The only way I can think of describing our love of firearms is that they have been deeply ingrained in our culture, from before we were an independent nation. I'd go more in depth, but I'm in a rush.

The only realistic scenario where I see this likely to happen is via economic collapse which the liberals are doing their best to accomplish.

 

[Cyrylek]

The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government.

Why do you assume that it will be a small band of dissidents on one side, and all the "tanks, aircraft, missiles", etc on the other? No civil war in history was like that. If god forbid, it ever comes to blows, most likely the forces will be about evenly matched, and every shotgun or revolver will count.

In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal.

Your (remarkable and admirable in many ways) country is pretty much homogeneous ethnically and culturally, and even its worst authoritarian rulers had shared the sense of unity and duty with the bulk of general population. Most countries in the world are nothing like that.

And: in the fiercely individualistic cultures - like the (heavily-armed) USA, Switzerland or Finland - this is not just about the political self-determination of the majority: it is just as much about the individual sovereignty. "Who the hell are they - our benevolent overlords - to treat me as some dangerous animal that needs to be declawed, horns sawed off - and perhaps neutered, just in case?!"

I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.

Please, do. And please keep in mind that "the USA" cannot be compared with "Luxemburg" or even "Canada" (10 times smaller and a very different structure), head-to-head.

Arguably, Switzerland and New Hampshire + Vermont could be compared. (To name one European country with widespread private gun ownership and very low crime, and two American states - one very libertarian, another very socialist, but both extremely "pro-gun" - and with about zero violence to report).