The myth that civilian gun ownership prevents tyranny

[spud_meister]

Nuclear war heads don't kill people. People kill people. So why not let Kim keep his warheads?

Because they're worried he'll kill people...

If nuclear warheads are the problem, why let a real estate mogul from New York or a community organiser from Chicago have them?

 

[dogboy49]

The myth that civilian gun ownership prevents tyranny

....The short answer: No. Data compiled by ThinkProgress from the past decade shows no correlation between civilian gun ownership rates and democracy — or low civilian gun ownership rates and the rise of a tyrannical government."

If there is a myth on the subject, it is that there is any single factor that will prevent tyranny.

"High civilian gun ownership rates" is one of many factors that can have an impact on the success of tyrants. In the end, Guns are just tools. In the hands of individuals, they can give these individuals improved abilities to resist tyranny. Guns don't prevent tyranny, people prevent tyranny.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Exactly. As the title of the thread, and my first post in it point out, civilian gun ownership doesn't prevent tyranny.

For that to be true then you'd no one would ever be able to point to an instance where gun ownership has prevented tyranny. Do you agree?

 

[spud_meister]

For that to be true then you'd no one would ever be able to point to an instance where gun ownership has prevented tyranny. Do you agree?

Sure, as long as your instance has only civilian gun ownership preventing tyranny, and not any form of organised resistance. In the same way guns don't kill people, guns don't prevent tyranny, they simply make it easier for individuals so inclined to do so.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Sure, as long as your instance has only civilian gun ownership preventing tyranny, and not any form of organised resistance. In the same way guns don't kill people, guns don't prevent tyranny, they simply make it easier for individuals so inclined to do so.

And to resist it. A two way street.

 

[Surrealistik]

Do high rates of gun ownership protect democracies? Data points to a resounding no.

This duck is looking forward to hearing your opinions on this interesting article. I question what I view as self serving gop/nra talking points on this matter.

https://thinkprogress.org/civilian-guns-do-not-prevent-tyranny-f831c6aa871c/

"There is, of course, a clear link between the Second Amendment and freedom, insofar as it permits freedoms for individuals to purchase and bear arms in the United States. As Pew found last year, some three-quarters of gun owners say the right to civilian gun ownership is “essential” to “their own personal sense of freedom.”

But is the right to civilian gun ownership also essential to the prevention of tyranny? Is it a key ingredient to the preservation, implementation, and extension of democracy?

The short answer: No. Data compiled by ThinkProgress from the past decade shows no correlation between civilian gun ownership rates and democracy — or low civilian gun ownership rates and the rise of a tyrannical government."

ThinkProgress aside, I think the biggest argument against guns being a defense against tyranny is as follows:

#1: Tyrannies that arise from democracies tend to have popular support (see Nazi Germany)

#2: Any would be guerrillas with arms per the 2nd amendment at the time of said tyranny coming to power must now also deal with loyalist citizens likewise armed by the 2nd amendment in addition to the police/military, while being almost certainly a minority.

As a consequence, the 2nd amendment seems at least as likely to aid an oppressive govt in practice as to hinder one (more citizens loyal to the govt have arms than citizens resisting), beyond the lengths a dictatorship may go, and the lack of restraint exercised in an attempt to retain power with the most powerful military arsenal on the face of the planet.

If there is real hope in resisting tyranny, it comes from a splintering of the US military, not the 2nd amendment.

 

[Aristaeus]

The American Civil War proves you wrong.

You do know technology has changed in the past 200 years, right? Far easier for a tyrannical regime to kill dissenters now than in the past.

 

[Howard the Duck]

ThinkProgress aside, I think the biggest argument against guns being a defense against tyranny is as follows:

#1: Tyrannies that arise from democracies tend to have popular support (see Nazi Germany)

#2: Any would be guerrillas with arms per the 2nd amendment at the time of said tyranny coming to power must now also deal with loyalist citizens likewise armed by the 2nd amendment in addition to the police/military, while being almost certainly a minority.

As a consequence, the 2nd amendment seems at least as likely to aid an oppressive govt in practice as to hinder one (more citizens loyal to the govt have arms than citizens resisting), beyond the lengths a dictatorship may go, and the lack of restraint exercised in an attempt to retain power with the most powerful military arsenal on the face of the planet.

If there is real hope in resisting tyranny, it comes from a splintering of the US military, not the 2nd amendment.

Actually, Germany is a great example. The treaty of Versailles prohibited a mass German army. So, armed militia like the nazis filled the void.

Armed citizens didn't stop tyranny in the wiemar republic. Rather, they brought Hitler to power.

 

[Howard the Duck]

You do know technology has changed in the past 200 years, right? Far easier for a tyrannical regime to kill dissenters now than in the past.

It's always been easy.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Sure, as long as your instance has only civilian gun ownership preventing tyranny, and not any form of organised resistance. In the same way guns don't kill people, guns don't prevent tyranny, they simply make it easier for individuals so inclined to do so.

Wait...you want to exclude one way of civilians with guns stopping tyranny? Why?

 

[Surrealistik]

Actually, Germany is a great example. The treaty of Versailles prohibited a mass German army. So, armed militia like the nazis filled the void.

Armed citizens didn't stop tyranny in the wiemar republic. Rather, they brought Hitler to power.

Exactly; that's precisely the point I'm making.

 

[Aristaeus]

Guns can also lead to tyranny....

Hence the reason you don't want the government to be the only ones with them.

Congrats on missing the point. In 1920 the UK government introduced gun licences because they feared working-class unrest could lead to a Bolshevik uprising. Allowing the people unfettered access to guns could have lead to tyranny.

 

[VanceMack]

You do know technology has changed in the past 200 years, right? Far easier for a tyrannical regime to kill dissenters now than in the past.

With what enforcement arm?

 

[Nap]

Congrats on missing the point. In 1920 the UK government introduced gun licences because they feared working-class unrest could lead to a Bolshevik uprising. Allowing the people unfettered access to guns could have lead to tyranny.

Maybe the UK government should have done a better job at addressing the issues of its' people so they wouldn't need to rise up. If a government is afraid of what their citizens might do if armed, then you have no worries about potential tyranny, tyranny is already in place. The purpose of the government is to serve the people, not the other way around.

 

[itsforthekids]

Ooh, I see. That must be why the supreme court didn't rule on this issue until, what? 2010 in Heller v DC? If it was settled law then why did it take 221 years before such a right was first mentioned?

Your thoughts?

Because it took that long for some moron to challenge one of the constitutions bill of rights.

 

[itsforthekids]

Tell that to the Soviet Union. Here's a list of countries that revolted against the Bear and won their independence without firing a shot:

1. Armenia
2. Azerbaijan
3. Belarus
4. Estonia
5. Georgia
6. Kazakhstan
7. Kyrgyzstan
8. Latvia
9. Lithuania
10. Moldova
11. Russia
12. Tajikistan
13. Turkmenistan
14. Ukraine
15. Uzbekistan

Thank you Ronald Reagan!

 

[spud_meister]

Wait...you want to exclude one way of civilians with guns stopping tyranny? Why?

Because tyranny can be stopped by organised resistance without guns. It's the mindset of the population, their willingness to see change done, that overthrows tyranny, not the availability of weapons. The idea that guns preserve freedom uses the same logic that guns cause deaths, that the gun, not the individual, is responsible for the outcome.

 

[TurtleDude]

Because it took that long for some moron to challenge one of the constitutions bill of rights.

what he ignores is that until FDR came around, no one in power claimed that the commerce clause allowed the federal government a gun control power

 

[Howard the Duck]

Because it took that long for some moron to challenge one of the constitutions bill of rights.

Our founding fathers were great writers. If they meant for Individuals to have individual rights to own guns they would have said so in no uncertain terms.

And they did not.

You are not and you never will be a well-regulated militia.

 

[Howard the Duck]

Thank you Ronald Reagan!

Reagan had nothing to do with it. When he left office the Soviet Union was still in existence, and would remain so, for years.

 

[Howard the Duck]

what he ignores is that until FDR came around, no one in power claimed that the commerce clause allowed the federal government a gun control power

A link to a case where someone claimed that the commerce clause justified federal gun vontrol?

 

[Rucker61]

Our founding fathers were great writers. If they meant for Individuals to have individual rights to own guns they would have said so in no uncertain terms.

And they did not.

You are not and you never will be a well-regulated militia.

Our Founding Fathers were very specific. They said if the power is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government doesn't have the power.

 

[Howard the Duck]

Our Founding Fathers were very specific. They said if the power is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government doesn't have the power.

The commerce clause, as cited by your fellow poster, is an enumerated power of Congress.

Meanwhile, heller v dc has no problems with the states regulating fire arms.

 

[Rucker61]

The commerce clause, as cited by your fellow poster, is an enumerated power of Congress.

True. It was not the intent of the Founders to allow it to be used to restrict rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, or else the BoR means nothing. It certainly wasn't intended to allow restriction of intrastate commerce.

 

[Howard the Duck]

True. It was not the intent of the Founders to allow it to be used to restrict rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, or else the BoR means nothing. It certainly wasn't intended to allow restriction of intrastate commerce.

That sounds like a great topic for your own thread! This one is about the myth that civilian gun ownership prevents tyranny.

I disagree with you and I plan to expound on that when you start said thread.