NationStates Jolt Archive


Question regarding the 2nd ammendment

Stripe-lovers
19-12-2004, 16:54
OK, I've posted this question a couple of times now and haven't had any kind of response so I'll try a new thread.

I see many supporters of the 2nd ammendment arguing that maintaining an armed citizenry is a necessary deterrant to the government seizing too much power. So, the question is, can anyone provide a sound historical example of an armed citizenry acting as an effective deterrent against a tyrannical domestic government forming?
Armed Bookworms
19-12-2004, 16:56
OK, I've posted this question a couple of times now and haven't had any kind of response so I'll try a new thread.

I see many supporters of the 2nd ammendment arguing that maintaining an armed citizenry is a necessary deterrant to the government seizing too much power. So, the question is, can anyone provide a sound historical example of an armed citizenry acting as an effective deterrent against a tyrannical domestic government forming?
Overthrow of Charles the 1st?
Pythagosaurus
19-12-2004, 16:59
Any country that gained its independence in battle.
Conceptualists
19-12-2004, 17:08
Overthrow of Charles the 1st?
Does Parliament count as an armed citizenry?
New Grunz
19-12-2004, 17:17
Well you dont see any tyrannical government forming because the people have guns. In Iraq they didnt have guns so they were repressed.
Conceptualists
19-12-2004, 17:20
Well you dont see any tyrannical government forming because the people have guns. In Iraq they didnt have guns so they were repressed.
Could you provide a source for this. Just that in all pictures I have seen of Iraq pre-Gulf War mk. II seem to have many people with guns. And no, they're not wearing military uniforms.
Chess Squares
19-12-2004, 17:22
Well you dont see any tyrannical government forming because the people have guns. In Iraq they didnt have guns so they were repressed.
yeah i guess they just pulled all those ak's and RPGs out of their ass
Celtlund
19-12-2004, 17:29
So, the question is, can anyone provide a sound historical example of an armed citizenry acting as an effective deterrent against a tyrannical domestic government forming?

Yes, the United States. We have an armed citizenery and have never had a tyrannical government.
Chess Squares
19-12-2004, 17:33
Yes, the United States. We have an armed citizenery and have never had a tyrannical government.
yeah that couldnt possibly stem from the ludicrously elaborate system designed by the people who made the government to stop tyranny
Celtlund
19-12-2004, 17:42
yeah that couldnt possibly stem from the ludicrously elaborate system designed by the people who made the government to stop tyranny

Could be, but also could be due to armed citizens. There is no real way to prove it one way or the other. Hey, a question was asked and I answered it.
Keruvalia
19-12-2004, 17:43
I see some folks maintain that an armed citizenry keep out tyrrants.

Horse Hockey!

Let's say GWB woke up one morning and decided he wanted to abolish the Senate and proclaim himself King of America. What does he do? He orders the military to step up. The highly trained military.

A bunch of half-drunk fat bubbas with shotguns and flannel shirts aren't going to be able to do dick about it.

Need proof? Insurgents. Untrained men with guns, while moderately annoying, will not defeat a highly trained military.

As for the 2nd ammendment, well, here's what I got:

"We called them ammendments because, well, they ammend! If we wanted it carved in stone, we would have written it in stone." - Thomas Jefferson
Andaluciae
19-12-2004, 17:46
The second amendment is part of an elaborate system to keep out tyrranical governments. The US Constitution has more emergency switches than you can count, be it the fact that the government is divided in branches, and real power is spread out amongst the three, or the much derided electoral college, or whatever, there are safeguards against tyranny all over the Constitution and the second amendment is just one of them.
Stripe-lovers
19-12-2004, 17:53
Yes, the United States. We have an armed citizenery and have never had a tyrannical government.

I thought that was all the tiger-repelling rocks you had.

Note, in the UK we've had almost as long a period of non-tyrannical governments without an armed citizenry.

But, point taken, I should have been clearer with the question. I meant an example where an armed citizenry can clearly be seen as the sole, or at least primary, deterrent.

Overthrow of Charles the 1st?

Who was replaced by what form of government?

Besides, the citizenry as a whole were not armed prior to the Civil War.
Pythagosaurus
19-12-2004, 18:13
I see some folks maintain that an armed citizenry keep out tyrrants.

Horse Hockey!

Let's say GWB woke up one morning and decided he wanted to abolish the Senate and proclaim himself King of America. What does he do? He orders the military to step up. The highly trained military.

A bunch of half-drunk fat bubbas with shotguns and flannel shirts aren't going to be able to do dick about it.

Need proof? Insurgents. Untrained men with guns, while moderately annoying, will not defeat a highly trained military.

As for the 2nd ammendment, well, here's what I got:

"We called them ammendments because, well, they ammend! If we wanted it carved in stone, we would have written it in stone." - Thomas Jefferson
They don't have to defeat the military. They just have to kill one person. And unless GWB intends to stay underground for the rest of his life, I don't think that even the US military could adequately protect him. Besides, he'd only have the part of the military that wanted him to remain in power. The rest of the military could probably do some damage.
Stripe-lovers
19-12-2004, 18:17
Any country that gained its independence in battle.

Note I said domestic governments. Independence is no longer relevant to the modern USA, unless you think we're going to try to re-take you (we're not, BTW).
Togarmah
19-12-2004, 18:19
OK, I've posted this question a couple of times now and haven't had any kind of response so I'll try a new thread.

I see many supporters of the 2nd ammendment arguing that maintaining an armed citizenry is a necessary deterrant to the government seizing too much power. So, the question is, can anyone provide a sound historical example of an armed citizenry acting as an effective deterrent against a tyrannical domestic government forming?

German freikorps. Funnily enough, that is why the fascist atlee made sure that he disarmed the returning british soldiers after WWII.

Fortunately he was too incompetant to carry out his own plans.

I suggest you deal with your inner hatred of the 2nd ammentment in a more productive way than asking silly questions.
Stripe-lovers
19-12-2004, 18:29
German freikorps. Funnily enough, that is why the fascist atlee made sure that he disarmed the returning british soldiers after WWII.

Fortunately he was too incompetant to carry out his own plans.

I suggest you deal with your inner hatred of the 2nd ammentment in a more productive way than asking silly questions.

What about the Sturm Abteilung?

And, please, don't lower yourself to childish retorts like "inner hatred of the 2nd ammentment". I, for one, would welcome a concrete example. I am always willing to be proved wrong, it is the only way one learns new things. I would humbly suggest that this is an attitude you may do well to consider adopting.
Pythagosaurus
19-12-2004, 18:31
Note I said domestic governments. Independence is no longer relevant to the modern USA, unless you think we're going to try to re-take you (we're not, BTW).
It was domestic until we overthrew it. But the US isn't the only country to gain its independence through war. I would reckon that any of the various coups in history would count as well.
Stripe-lovers
19-12-2004, 18:37
It was domestic until we overthrew it. But the US isn't the only country to gain its independence through war. I would reckon that any of the various coups in history would count as well.

To my mind it was not domestic because it was a colonial arrangement. Ultimate power resided in a place distant from the location of those rising up against the regime, and it did not result in a change in this location. The only way such a scenario would apply to the US would be if one or more states wished to no longer be ruled from Washington. In which case an ammendment permitting states to opt out of the Union would be a better step than an armed citizenry.

As for coups, I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but two points spring to mind:
1) the vast majority of coups are conducted by the military with little or no involvement from the populace.
2) very few coups result in a less tyrannical government.
Togarmah
19-12-2004, 18:39
What about the Sturm Abteilung?

And, please, don't lower yourself to childish retorts like "inner hatred of the 2nd ammentment". I, for one, would welcome a concrete example. I am always willing to be proved wrong, it is the only way one learns new things. I would humbly suggest that this is an attitude you may do well to consider adopting.


Well there is your example. The German Friekorps. The SA didn't organize until well after that period, and certainly wasn't a force until much later. By then the german citizenry had voluntarily surrendered their weapons in the name of public safety,

Who knows, had ordinary german citizens insisted on retaining their weapons, maybe they could have dealt with the communist gangs themselves, and avoided all that Nazi unpleasantness.
Pythagosaurus
19-12-2004, 18:42
To my mind it was not domestic because it was a colonial arrangement. Ultimate power resided in a place distant from the location of those rising up against the regime, and it did not result in a change in this location. The only way such a scenario would apply to the US would be if one or more states wished to no longer be ruled from Washington. In which case an ammendment permitting states to opt out of the Union would be a better step than an armed citizenry.

As for coups, I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but two points spring to mind:
1) the vast majority of coups are conducted by the military with little or no involvement from the populace.
2) very few coups result in a less tyrannical government.
I don't know. I'm still just making stuff up.

Frankly, I don't care what the reasons are for the second amendment. Being a Libertarian really cuts down on your stress levels.
Celtlund
19-12-2004, 18:44
I meant an example where an armed citizenry can clearly be seen as the sole, or at least primary, deterrent.

I doubt you will find one.
Conceptualists
19-12-2004, 18:45
German freikorps. Funnily enough, that is why the fascist atlee made sure that he disarmed the returning british soldiers after WWII.

Considering that the Freicorps tried their own putch, I don't think that they are the best example you can provide
Conceptualists
19-12-2004, 18:51
I doubt you will find one.
Afganistan during the 80s when the soviets tried to invade. Or does external help make that null?

I suppose you may be able to point to Haiti, not just recently, but throughout it existence.

Maybe certain periods of French history too.
Karitopia
19-12-2004, 18:52
I don't know as much about history as I'd like to, but what about the French Revolution?
Togarmah
19-12-2004, 18:53
Considering that the Freicorps tried their own putch, I don't think that they are the best example you can provide

I think you are confusing them with the Nazis. I don't recall the freikorps doing any such thing. In fact they supported the republic and prevented its overthrow.

In any event, the freikorp were armed citizens that a tyranical domestic government from forming.
Conceptualists
19-12-2004, 19:14
I think you are confusing them with the Nazis. I don't recall the freikorps doing any such thing. In fact they supported the republic and prevented its overthrow.

In any event, the freikorp were armed citizens that a tyranical domestic government from forming.
No, I wasn't thinking of the Nazis.

I was thinking about the Kapp Putsch, with IIRC was in 1920. Well before the Nazis rose to prominence.
Conceptualists
19-12-2004, 19:15
I don't know as much about history as I'd like to, but what about the French Revolution?
That wasn't really an armed citizenry overthrowing a tyranical government. But a pissed off citizenry quickly finding weapons to overthrow a tyranical government (yes I realise I am simplifying somewhat, the causes of the Fr.Rev. were far more complicated then that)
Yggrasil
19-12-2004, 19:33
America seems to be about the only country in the developed world whose citizens seem obsessed with having guns. To protect you from... what exactly? The only result is that you kill many more people through gun accidents than anyone else. A few countries without tyrannical governments whose citizens do not bear arms: Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, and almost any other developed country you can name.
Togarmah
19-12-2004, 19:34
No, I wasn't thinking of the Nazis.

I was thinking about the Kapp Putsch, with IIRC was in 1920. Well before the Nazis rose to prominence.

Kapp was a journalist. And most of the Friekorps never supported him, only Luttwitz unit. Indeed, many od the Freikorps opposed the putsch along with most of the army's officers.

More to the point. The Freikorp restored order and deposed the tyranical bolshevik regime in Bavaria and installed the Weimar Republic thoughout Germany.. You can not deny that. And they were armed citizens. So that is the example.
Togarmah
19-12-2004, 19:35
America seems to be about the only country in the developed world whose citizens seem obsessed with having guns. To protect you from... what exactly? The only result is that you kill many more people through gun accidents than anyone else. A few countries without tyrannical governments whose citizens do not bear arms: Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, and almost any other developed country you can name.

We are the only country that is really keen on jury trials and the right to silence too. I suppose that makes us bad people as well.
Conceptualists
19-12-2004, 19:38
Kapp was a journalist. And most of the Friekorps never supported him, only Luttwitz unit. Indeed, many od the Freikorps opposed the putsch along with most of the army's officers.

Still, Freikorp were involved. And ultimately it wasn't other Freikorp that restored order in Berlin and repelled Kapp. It was workers iirc.

More to the point. The Freikorp restored order and deposed the tyranical bolshevik regime in Bavaria and installed the Weimar Republic thoughout Germany.. You can not deny that. And they were armed citizens. So that is the example.
Ultimately though. The Freikorp just become a convenient ay for the WR to get around the "no army" clause in treaty of versailles. They were effectively mercenaries and can not really be considered an armed citizenry just like the Viet Minh cannot.
Conceptualists
19-12-2004, 19:41
We are the only country that is really keen on jury trials and the right to silence too. I suppose that makes us bad people as well.
What?

It may suprise you but the americans weren't the firsst to come up with trial by jury. Nor the only to see it as a an important part of a free society. And I dount if there is a western liberal democracy that doesn't give the right to silence to its citizens/subjects
Togarmah
19-12-2004, 19:42
What?

It may suprise you but the americans weren't the firsst to come up with trial by jury. Nor the only to see it as a an important part of a free society. And I dount if there is a western liberal democracy that doesn't give the right to silence to its citizens/subjects

England doesn't.
Conceptualists
19-12-2004, 19:44
England doesn't.
What about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ;)

Anyway. There are more liberal democracies in the world that the UK
Togarmah
19-12-2004, 19:44
Still, Freikorp were involved. And ultimately it wasn't other Freikorp that restored order in Berlin and repelled Kapp. It was workers iirc.


Ultimately though. The Freikorp just become a convenient ay for the WR to get around the "no army" clause in treaty of versailles. They were effectively mercenaries and can not really be considered an armed citizenry just like the Viet Minh cannot.

Yes ulitmately it was the general strike that brought down Kapp in berlin. And only one, of many friekorps unit were involved.

That does not change the fact that the Freikorp stopped tyranny in Bavaria. And at theat time they were armed citizens.

I don't really see what you are geting at with the no army clause. The freikorps all pretty much disbanded in 22-23.
Togarmah
19-12-2004, 19:47
What about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ;)

Anyway. There are more liberal democracies in the world that the UK

Scotland has it's own legal system. Wales is part of England.

BTW, scotland for many years has had it's own way around double jeporady.
Chess Squares
19-12-2004, 19:48
Could be, but also could be due to armed citizens. There is no real way to prove it one way or the other. Hey, a question was asked and I answered it.
it was not a definitive answer. it could be attributed to dozens of things. and what about the civil war? states tried to secede licoln used the armed forces to force them to stay part of hte union, the armed citizenry worked well there
Conceptualists
19-12-2004, 19:49
Scotland has it's own legal system. Wales is part of England.

BTW, scotland for many years has had it's own way around double jeporady.
Well, I have my own problems with this own country. Which I won't get into now.
Chess Squares
19-12-2004, 19:54
They don't have to defeat the military. They just have to kill one person. And unless GWB intends to stay underground for the rest of his life, I don't think that even the US military could adequately protect him. Besides, he'd only have the part of the military that wanted him to remain in power. The rest of the military could probably do some damage.
yeah thats what the secret service and undisclosed locations are for
Ilsaradin
19-12-2004, 20:05
Ah, one of my favorite issues. I'm in favor of trusting people, even to the point of letting them carry concealed weapons.

Going to the question at the head of the thread, in a word, no, and for about the same reason you never hear about intelligence foiling terrorism. Things just keep going normally.

However, consider the converse: Nearly every would-be tyrannical government makes disarming citizens an early priority. Kristallnacht has the same date as the passage of the Nazi bill regulating ownership of guns, knives, clubs, and large dogs. Kemal, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin all had discretionary laws regulating the ownership of firearms in place before they started their slaughters.

Need proof? Insurgents. Untrained men with guns, while moderately annoying, will not defeat a highly trained military. -- KeruvaliaReally? What about the Warsaw Uprising? (Wikipedia it.) UNTRAINED but clever Jews, using unfamiliar weapons, held up the Nazi army for longer than ALL OF FRANCE. Hitler had to shell them with nerve gas to get his army moving again.

Besides, the citizenry as a whole were not armed prior to the Civil War. -- Stripe lovers Begging your pardon, but I have yet to see any reputable research on this.

Regarding the so-called American obsession with guns: I addressed this in a rant on my site, http://arkanabar.tripod.com/whatguns.html and I would be pleased if you were to read it.
Armed Bookworms
19-12-2004, 20:06
I see some folks maintain that an armed citizenry keep out tyrrants.

Horse Hockey!

Let's say GWB woke up one morning and decided he wanted to abolish the Senate and proclaim himself King of America. What does he do? He orders the military to step up. The highly trained military.

A bunch of half-drunk fat bubbas with shotguns and flannel shirts aren't going to be able to do dick about it.

Need proof? Insurgents. Untrained men with guns, while moderately annoying, will not defeat a highly trained military.

Ahem, it's a fully volunteer army and more than 80 million people with weapons in the US. There have never been even 50,000 insurgents active at the same time.
BastardSword
19-12-2004, 20:12
What?

It may suprise you but the americans weren't the firsst to come up with trial by jury. Nor the only to see it as a an important part of a free society. And I dount if there is a western liberal democracy that doesn't give the right to silence to its citizens/subjects
You recently I talked with the Police and they said the Maranda Rights are a Myth. So Either Police have become very corrupt or you don't really have the right to be silent.
Armed Bookworms
19-12-2004, 20:22
it was not a definitive answer. it could be attributed to dozens of things. and what about the civil war? states tried to secede licoln used the armed forces to force them to stay part of hte union, the armed citizenry worked well there That doesn't quite make the cut. It was two armies and the north really only won because of some extremely lucky instances. If the north had tried to take away the south's weapons the civil war would not have ended by any means.
Colerica
19-12-2004, 20:43
I see some folks maintain that an armed citizenry keep out tyrrants.

Horse Hockey!

Let's say GWB woke up one morning and decided he wanted to abolish the Senate and proclaim himself King of America. What does he do? He orders the military to step up. The highly trained military.

A bunch of half-drunk fat bubbas with shotguns and flannel shirts aren't going to be able to do dick about it.

Need proof? Insurgents. Untrained men with guns, while moderately annoying, will not defeat a highly trained military.

As for the 2nd ammendment, well, here's what I got:

"We called them ammendments because, well, they ammend! If we wanted it carved in stone, we would have written it in stone." - Thomas Jefferson

I take great offense to your narrow-minded elitest bigotry when you call all firearm owners "half-drunk fat bubbas." To the point, however, you should know that there are over fourteen million firearm deer hunters in America. All of them own and know how to use either a rifle or a shotgun. The vast majority of them own camoflauge. The vast majority of them own accurate optics for their rifles. The vast majority of them know how to handle themselves in the woods far more effectively than non-hunters.

The United States' army stands at, what, three million strong? Fourteen million versus three million? I'll take those odds any day. Bring it on, federal government. I'm waiting for you.

Also consider this. During the French Resistance, French freedom fighters were direly short on weapons and ammunition. As a way of acquiring more of both, they devised a cute little tactic to steal from the Germans. A freedom fighter would approach a German soldier (preferrably where there was a supply truck near-by) and ask him for a smoke...or if he wanted his sister for the night. He'd engage the German in conversation and then pull a pistol on him, shooting him in the head. As quick as he could, the Frenchmen would take anything he could from the dead soldier and flee before other Germans could kill him.

Look at Iraq and how effective the terrorists have become at killing American soldiers. We're the greatest military force in the world and we're in constant conflict with poorly-armed militia men who have managed to kill a thousand plus of our boys and girls.

Make sure your brain is engaged before putting your mouth in gear.

In regards to the question of this thread, I say this....the Thirteen American Colonies broke away from the British Empire and fought for their freedom with the firearms they owned. That's the best example in world history of a populace repelling tyranny by use of arms.

A few countries without tyrannical governments whose citizens do not bear arms: Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, and almost any other developed country you can name.

I'm sorry if I don't want to live in socialist hell-holes like Canada, Sweden, or Denmark. Out of those four nations you listed, Japan is the only one that is even remotely capitalist in nature, and Japan does not have firearms because we wrote their Constitution after defeating them in World War II.

Moreover, back to the topic of a US tyrant vs. an armed population, you have to question whether or not American soldiers would cooperate with the wishes of a dictator to turn their guns on their own friends and family. More than likely, they'd dipose of the dictator on their own.
Stripe-lovers
19-12-2004, 20:45
Well there is your example. The German Friekorps. The SA didn't organize until well after that period, and certainly wasn't a force until much later. By then the german citizenry had voluntarily surrendered their weapons in the name of public safety,

OK, thanks for the calmer response. My point in throwing out the SA was that whilst the Freikorps could be seen as armed citizenry halting tyranny, the SA could be seen as the opposite. My worry about armed citizenry is that it assumes that said armed individuals cannot be co-opted. The lesson of the SA would suggest otherwise. I seem to recall that the SA had a number of recruits from the Freikorps, though I could be wrong about that.

I wasn't aware of the voluntary surrendering of arms. Do you have an online source handy? This isn't me demanding validation, I'm willing to take your word on it, but I'd like to read up on it and reliable printed sources are fairly scarce here.

Who knows, had ordinary german citizens insisted on retaining their weapons, maybe they could have dealt with the communist gangs themselves, and avoided all that Nazi unpleasantness.

Maybe. I guess my concern is that those citizens who arm themselves tend to gravitate towards the right. Thus, though they would be an effective deterrant against left-wing dictatorship they may be co-opted by a rightist movement.

Do you know what the situation was in Italy pre-Mussolini, BTW? That would be another interesting case study. I accept that my knowledge of the history there is inadequate.
Stripe-lovers
19-12-2004, 20:53
Afganistan during the 80s when the soviets tried to invade. Or does external help make that null?

Not external help, but an external invasion. I would be willing to accept that an armed citizenry can help a great deal against invasion (it's why it makes sense in Switzerland) but I'm not so sure about domestic governments.

It seems to me some people assume that dictatorships form through Dr Evil type characters suddenly gaining supreme power through devilish machinations. In reality dictatorships are usually supported by a significant section of the populous, if not the majority. They're usually the reaction to unhappiness with inefficient, corrupt, or aloof leadership. Given this an armed citizenry can sometimes, in my opinion, help a dictatorship form if the militant armed citizens are unhappy with the democratic government. In my opinion the best way to avoid dictatorship is by instilling values and mechanisms that help ensure good government. And making sure that governments are open to reform. Anything else can be a double edged sword.

I suppose you may be able to point to Haiti, not just recently, but throughout it existence.

However, it must be said that in Haitit the result of such actions has rarely been particularly positive.

Maybe certain periods of French history too.

Maybe, I really wouldn't know. I don't believe the French citizenry at large has ever been armed, though (I stand to be corrected).
Celtlund
20-12-2004, 01:59
I doubt you will find one.

I was wrong. Ireland won its independence from a tyrannical government.
Superpower07
20-12-2004, 02:00
The way I see it, gun control doesn't work (this is coming from an ex-gun control advocate); so why support something that just takes up bureaucracy?
Celtlund
20-12-2004, 02:03
We are the only country that is really keen on jury trials and the right to silence too.

I think Canada, Australia, Great Brittan, New Zeeland, and Ireland might dispute that. Maybe a few other places I don't know about
Celtlund
20-12-2004, 02:18
I addressed this in a rant on my site, http://arkanabar.tripod.com/whatguns.html and I would be pleased if you were to read it.

Very well said.
Celtlund
20-12-2004, 02:20
You recently I talked with the Police and they said the Maranda Rights are a Myth. So Either Police have become very corrupt or you don't really have the right to be silent.

WTF! :confused:
Lethalia
20-12-2004, 02:40
Iran.
The Lagonia States
20-12-2004, 04:35
So, the question is, can anyone provide a sound historical example of an armed citizenry acting as an effective deterrent against a tyrannical domestic government forming?

How about the American Revolution?

On the flip side, my greatest anti-gun control argument is Tian An Min Square. The people were throwing rocks at tanks. It's really hard to fight that way.
Stripe-lovers
21-12-2004, 11:38
Begging your pardon, but I have yet to see any reputable research on this.


Point taken, I really have nothing to back up such a statement. It should have been better qualified. However, from my recollections of studying the period the arms of both armies came mostly from arsenals, in the case of the Roundheads, and the caches of noblemen, in the case of the Cavaliers. I do not recall much ownership of muskets amongst the populous at large at the time, indeed I doubt many could have afforded such things (many amongst the nobility had only a handful if any).

All I could find on the internet was one quote which suggests that conscripts did not have their own weapons:

'the reare being brought up with troopers that had commission to shoot such as lagged behind, so as the poor countrymen ... [were] in a dilemma of death, either by the troopers if they went not on, or by the... shot of the towne if they did'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/englishcivilwar/choosingsides_05.shtml

This is only one instance, however, and should by no means be taken to suggest the situation at large. As such, I stand to be corrected though, any contradictory information is welcomed.


Regarding the so-called American obsession with guns: I addressed this in a rant on my site, http://arkanabar.tripod.com/whatguns.html and I would be pleased if you were to read it.

I read it but I'm afraid to say I don't really see how it is relevant to the issue at hand. Most seems to be concerned with the personal safety issue. Of the rest there's a section about genocide, which seems to be only concerned with the issue of permits, rather than gun ownership as a whole. I don't find it that convincing either; it may limit the effectiveness of genocide which is conducted primarily by the state (though it's worth noting that the example of the Warsaw Jewish Ghetto uprising (not the Warsaw uprising, they were separate events) did not stop the Holocaust) but I don't see how it would be effective against the kind of genocide seen in Rwanda. Indeed, I can't help but feel that had the citizens of Rwanda all been armed the genocide would have been considerably worse.

As for the penultimate paragraph, well, it's a common line but not one I find convincing. It doesn't show that had those groups not been disarmed the slaughter would not have happened. Nor does it take account of the many times that disarmament has occurred without a consequential slaughter. Besides, if these groups were disarmed, they must have been armed before. Why, then, did this not help them prevent such horrendous regimes from coming into being?

I was wrong. Ireland won its independence from a tyrannical government.
How about the American Revolution?

Like I said, domestic tyrannies. I don't disagree with arming the citizenry of a country under threat of invasion. Nor do I disagree that an armed citizenry has, on many occasions, helped remove colonial powers. I still remain unconvinced about its effectiveness in stopping a domestic tyrany from forming, however. I feel it makes too much of an assumption about the ability of the armed citizens to clearly perceive what is happening, and even if they perceive it to necessarily oppose it.
Stripe-lovers
21-12-2004, 12:05
On the flip side, my greatest anti-gun control argument is Tian An Min Square. The people were throwing rocks at tanks. It's really hard to fight that way.

Given as I have somewhat specialised interest in China (as shown from my location) I thought I'd devote a full post to this.

First, in general terms, it is by no means certain that even had China had legal gun ownership the students at Tiananmen would have used them. As far as I'm aware (I stand to be corrected) there were no instances of students using firearms in any of the campus protests in the US in the 60s, even those where the authorities cracked down hard, though guns were avaliable at the time.

Secondly, I'm not sure even if the students had had firearms they would have been all that effective. They would have been facing a large, well-trained force which was much better equipped. Remember the tanks? A handgun would hardly be much more effective than a rock against a T-79. The best the students could have hoped for is a Paris Commune-esque situation in Beijing and possibly a few other cities where there were protests. The ultimate outcome would probably have been the same as the Paris Commune, though.

Finally, unless the students had somehow managed to take and hold Beijing long enough to form an alternative government (unlikely in my opinion) then the end result would not bear thinking about. What a lot of people fail to recognise is that the protests failed to generate much support in the populous at large. Had the students started firing on the troops what little support there was would have evaporated. You can bet CCTV would have broadcast plenty of pictures of PLA men being gunned down by the students. I shudder to think what the response of most Chinese would have been. Remember, that for most of the older generation student activism was equated with the Red Guards and the Cultural Revolution. I suspect there would have been serious backlashes against any student groups protesting anywhere. Don't assume that the Chinese would have the same portrayal or impression of the students that we did; student activists were (and still are) viewed with deep suspicion and the true facts of Tiananmen are still unkown to most Chinese.

OK, an overly long reply but the summation is this: I doubt if the students were armed the Tiananmen protest would have turned out much better for them, probably it would have turned out much worse not just for them but for university students accross the country.
Karas
21-12-2004, 13:24
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of al free Englishmen, as the founders of the United States saw themselves to be. It does not need to be qualified or justified any more than freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

The Right to bear arms was part of English common law long before the American Revolution. The founders of the US, seeing how easy it is for a government to legislate away common law rights wisely saw fit to codify these rights in the highest law of the land. This decision has proven very wise, since the British Government has consistantly used legislation to limit the gun ownership rights of its citizens in this century, as it has limited reigious freedom and free speech in the past. The fact that the right being violated doesn't seem to be important to some people doesn't mean that the government should take it away. This would set a precident that allows the government to take away all rights. That is what disarming is about. It doesn't stop people from attempting to overthrow the government, it just makes them less likely to speak up when it starts curtailing other fundamental rights.

http://www.pierrelemieux.org/greenwood-citizen.html

As for the effectiveness of "insurgents", of course guerillas can't defeat a regular army in battle, but a regular army can't defeat an guerilla army in war. A gurilla movement can never be stamped out entirely, the point is to annoy the regular army so much that it doesn't want to fight anymore. This worked in the American Revolution, it worked in Veitnam, and it will probably work again in Iraq.