Guns, a fresh start.

[Kerberos]

People CAN make such a stand.

Ehh, no they can't, this guy did not use a gun so the picture is a total non sequiter. Didn't do much good either.

 

[Kerberos]

Also, didn't the Americans have French support?

They did, without the French they'd all be speaking English now.

 

[Earthborn]

People CAN make such a stand.

He didn't have a gun. It is very likely that if he had a gun, he could not have made such a stand for as long as he did.

Originally posted by Ed
I seem to recall that that guy died in captivity.

According to Wikipedia, the identity of the man and what happened after the incident is still unknown. If you have any information about him, let's hear it.

 

[Rolfe]

You need a few more exceptions - for example, a racehorse has just broken its leg, badly. I don't know any other way of putting the poor beast out of its misery quickly, effectively, and relatively safely.

But accepting that, I'd be very willing to give it a go.

Rolfe.

 

[chocolatepossum]

I think I can understand people in America resisting limitations on handun ownership now. If all the legal hanguns in America were confiscated tomorrow that would just leave people more vulnerable IMO. However, once you take away the incentive to posess handguns for self-defence against criminals, I cannot see why one would want to keep them, in light of all the deaths they must cause or at least facilitate. `

I tend to agree with Kerberos that the need for guns as a defence against government seems a little paranoid, I also feel that it sits at odds with the rule of law. Maybe I'm being complacent about the danger of the UK sliding into tyranny but as I look out of my window onto the leafy cul de sac where I live, the idea of such a thing happening seems a little farfetched. Hardly the most convincing argument I know

Finally, I would like to know whether those who see guns as a defence against a potentially tyrannical government would support further arming of the citizenry. As I said before

... would you consider it a good idea for RPGs, anti-personnel mines, and heavy machine guns, or even tanks to be available for purchase by the general public?

 

[Freakshow]

I think I can understand people in America resisting limitations on handun ownership now. If all the legal hanguns in America were confiscated tomorrow that would just leave people more vulnerable IMO. However, once you take away the incentive to posess handguns for self-defence against criminals...

And how would you do this?

I tend to agree with Kerberos that the need for guns as a defence against government seems a little paranoid, I also feel that it sits at odds with the rule of law. Maybe I'm being complacent about the danger of the UK sliding into tyranny but as I look out of my window onto the leafy cul de sac where I live, the idea of such a thing happening seems a little farfetched. Hardly the most convincing argument I know

This may come as a shock to you, but I live in the United States because I want to, not because I have to. I have the resources and work experience to move to other countries, if I really wanted to. But I can't think of any other country I would prefer to live in. One of the reasons (not the only reason) is because I don't think most other countries are as free as the United States. In most other industrialized nations, taxes are too high, there's too much social spending, and too many social programs. (I think this about the US, too. But everything is relative.) I would like to see more freedom in the US. I am not happy with it as it is now. But when having to choose a modern industrialize nation in which to live, freedom is a big part of it. I was thinking of starting a thread on this, asking for feedback from fellow posters around the world, regarding freedom in other industrialized nations. Hey, I might want to move if I can find a country that I consider to be more free. I'm serious.

And part of this freedom is the government trusting me to own guns. If a government can't trust me, a citizen who has never even been arrested, with guns, then I will not trust them in turn.

Finally, I would like to know whether those who see guns as a defence against a potentially tyrannical government would support further arming of the citizenry. As I said before...would you consider it a good idea for RPGs, anti-personnel mines, and heavy machine guns, or even tanks to be available for purchase by the general public?

Strawman.

 

[Freakshow]

Our government has guns that Jefferson could have only dreamed of. If you think the .45 you have in your glovebox will protect you from a row of tanks or a wing of stealth bombers you're more delusional than you look.

Your most powerful weapon is not your gun -- it's your voice. And your voice only works if you raise it with the voices of those around you. Allowing your government to manufacture consent and lie to you is letting your guard down, and when you've done that your gun is useless -- but you still have your voice. If you let that slip away, then you've no weapons at all.

As others have posted, history has shown that small groups of armed citizens can give governments serious trouble.

You will find that I, and many other posters here, respond best to logical argument, rather than statements such as "you're more delusional than you look." Statements like that have no effect whatsoever on convincing me that you are right, and I am wrong.

 

[luchog]

It can still be really difficult though. Weren't Gandhi and his followers unarmed? They caused no end of trouble for the British.

No. While Ghandi did advocate the use of non-violent tactics for the beginning of the rebellion, and only used non-violence himself; he also advocated violent tactics when appropriate, and condoned the the violent resistance against British suppression by some of the northern Indian states. He was, ultimately, a pragmatist.

Btw can a nation be armed and also oppressed? Wasn’t the Iraqi population armed during Saddam's rule?

Nope, they weren't.

 

[shanek]

I seem to recall that that guy died in captivity. There were massive protests in Europe, of course.

There are several theories on who that guy is. No one really knows for sure. He's an anonymous, unsung hero.

 

[shanek]

He didn't have a gun.

So? The point is that people can and do make stands against a mightier opponent.

 

[shanek]

I think I can understand people in America resisting limitations on handun ownership now. If all the legal hanguns in America were confiscated tomorrow that would just leave people more vulnerable IMO. However, once you take away the incentive to posess handguns for self-defence against criminals, I cannot see why one would want to keep them, in light of all the deaths they must cause or at least facilitate.

Stats? And do you have stats either showing that this outweighs or at least other info calling into question the numerous instances of defensive gun use every year?

I tend to agree with Kerberos that the need for guns as a defence against government seems a little paranoid,

Ask the ravers in Utah, or the homeowners in New London, or José Padilla, etc.

 

[Kerberos]

As others have posted, history has shown that small groups of armed citizens can give governments serious trouble.

And history has also shown that developed democracies doesn't need guns.

 

[Kerberos]

So? The point is that people can and do make stands against a mightier opponent.

So the fact that people can make a stand without a gun proves that they need guns?

 

[delphi_ote]

It is far easier to oppress and control an un-armed citizenry than it is an armed one (see Iraq).

Wait a minute... I thought the U.S. was there to liberate and install democracy. What's all this "oppress and control" stuff about?

 

[Kerberos]

Ask the ravers in Utah, or the homeowners in New London, or José Padilla, etc.

Did they have guns? If so you defeat your own point, if not then you need to prove or at least provide some evidence that guns would have helped them. It certainly wouldn't have helped Padila, except perhaps to get him shot rather than arrested, but I don't think that qualifies as "help". I cannot think of a single case where citizins of a developed democracy have succesfullly resisted or topled their governenement using guns. I can think of countless cases where they have resisted or topled a governement using the ballot box or demonstrations.

 

[Sushi]

So the fact that people can make a stand without a gun proves that they need guns?

Oh please, he's not saying that guns are needed in every circumstance.

 

[Sushi]

And history has also shown that developed democracies doesn't need guns.

"Democracy" is a more recent practice (disregarding the Greeks), so to claim that history tells us anything about democracies not needing guns is just plain intellectually dishonest.

Also, in a "democracy", whatever is "right" is whatever the majority wants, so I don't think there will be very much occasions where you will find the "democracy" to be very wrong. It is an unpopular opinion but even the majority can be horrible, and a minority may need to fend themselves off from the oppression of the rest of society. A good historical example would be the Jews in Nazi Germany (the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto apparently held out longer than Poland, if my memory serves me correctly...what is this about people making a stand?) and blacks in earlier America. Representation today does not mean representation tomorrow; and just having representation of some sort does not guarentee you safety.

The issue regarding guns should be individual safety. You cannot rely on anyone else to protect you. General safety today is no guarentee of safety tomorrow.

 

[Kerberos]

Oh please, he's not saying that guns are needed in every circumstance.

The how is it even remotely relevant. LW (I think) said that guns are no help against tanks. Shanek then replyes with a picture of an unarmed man facing tanks and a comment that people can make such a stand, happilly ignoring the fact that the guy is not using a gun, and thus isn't making "such" a stand. Now there might be cases of armed populations topling opresive regimes, but this isn't such a case, since guns weren't used and no regimes were topled.

 

[Kerberos]

"Democracy" is a more recent practice (disregarding the Greeks), so to claim that history tells us anything about democracies not needing guns is just plain intellectually dishonest.

Modern democracies have been common for 50 years, and have existed for significantly longer than that (depending on you definition). That's plenty of time to draw a conclusion, what's intellectually dishonest is you dismissing this simply because it doesn't fit you predetermined conclusions.

Also, in a "democracy", whatever is "right" is whatever the majority wants, so I don't think there will be very much occasions where you will find the "democracy" to be very wrong.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you just said.

It is an unpopular opinion but even the majority can be horrible, and a minority may need to fend themselves off from the oppression of the rest of society.

That's possible, in theory at least, personally I can think of relatively few, if any, cases where the majorities in developed democracies have done really oppressive things to minorities. I suppose it depends a little on what you call "really oppressive" and “developed democracies".

A good historical example would be the Jews in Nazi Germany (the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto apparently held out longer than Poland, if my memory serves me correctly...what is this about people making a stand?)

Two points, first of all which part of "developed democracy" is it you don't understand? I don't think there exists a mind expanding substance strong enough to allow one to consider Nazi Germany a developed democracy. Secondly, no, even disregarding that mind-boggling huge flaw in you argument that is not a good example. Guess why? Because it didn't work, so they might have held out a few weeks or months (because the army was otherwise occupied), but it didn't change anything, they still got send to Auschwitz or wherever.

and blacks in earlier America.

I wouldn't necessarily consider the US of that time a developed democracy, but let's ignore that for a moment. Was it guns that gave Blacks their civil rights? I'm not familiar with the specifics of the US civil rights movement, but it's not my impression that it took the form of an armed insurrection. There was the civil war of course, but that wasn't necessarily about slavery, and in any case that wasn't armed citizens. I’ve never said that democracies, even developed democracies can do no wrong, simply that I have never seen anything even remotely resembling evidence that guns have helped to correct such wrongs.

Representation today does not mean representation tomorrow; and just having representation of some sort does not guarentee you safety./B]

I read a book once, called "the Future of Freedom" by one Fareed Zakari. According to him no democracy with a BNP greater than 6000 dollars/person (I'm not 100% on the number, but I think that was it) has ever colapsed, with the exception of countries whose wealth came from natural resources.

The issue regarding guns should be individual safety. You cannot rely on anyone else to protect you. General safety today is no guarentee of safety tomorrow.

I've relied on other people to protect me my whole life, it's worked fairly well so far. So have you actually, and just about every other citizen of a western nation for the last several hundred years, though the protection we get today is probably significantly superior to what we got in the past.

 

[chocolatepossum]

And how would you do this?

I'm not suggesting it could be done in practice, read my post at the start of the thread.

Finally, I would like to know whether those who see guns as a defence against a potentially tyrannical government would support further arming of the citizenry. As I said before...would you consider it a good idea for RPGs, anti-personnel mines, and heavy machine guns, or even tanks to be available for purchase by the general public?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Strawman.

No, it's not a stawman, I am not misrepresenting your views. I am ASKING YOU whether you hold these views because they seem to me to be the logical conclusion of the position that the citizenry should be armed in order to be able to fight against a tyrannical government if need be. If these are not your views, why not?