NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, I realise there is another gun thread on page 1, but I want to take this into a different direction.

I don't care about guns for self-defence, guns for hunting or sport, or how often guns kill your loved ones. I don't even care whether criminals have guns.

I want to talk about the angle that people sometimes use about an armed populace guaranteeing freedom from oppression. For example:
Perhaps it's because we think that the people shouldn't fear their government, but that the government should fear the people. Perhaps, that is.

So here are my questions:

1) Should there be limits on what sort of guns people can own? Handguns? Assault Rifles? RPGs? Attack Helicopters? WMD?

2) If yes, why one and not the other?

3) Assuming that people with only handguns cannot defeat the government's army and police, why would a 'lack of gun control' (ie as currently in the US) restrict the powers of the government to oppress?

4) Assuming the army and police would not go ahead and slaughter the revolutionaries with their tanks and jets, what would you then have needed guns for in the first place?

5) And what if the government oppresses an armed minority and gets support from an also armed majority of citizens?

So is there any validity in the idea that allowing everyone a gun decreases the risk of an oppressive dictatorship arising?

Wasn't much happening over there, coulda hijacked it.

4) Assuming the army and police would not go ahead and slaughter the revolutionaries with their tanks and jets, what would you then have needed guns for in the first place?
That's a bad assumption to make. Armed governments have fallen to revolutionaries in the past and they will do so again.

It usually depends on popular support. For example, in the Russian uprising of 1905 and even more so in the 1917 Revolution, many of the tsar's troops switched sides and fought for freedom.

It usually depends on popular support.
Exactly!
So why did it matter whether or not the mob had pitchforks or revolvers?

I'm contending that it didn't. The revolutionaries alone can't be a threat either way (as long as an army exists of course). It's only once the security services switch sides that a government starts to go down.

1) Should there be limits on what sort of guns people can own? Handguns? Assault Rifles? RPGs? Attack Helicopters? WMD?

I think assault rifles should be the limit.

2) If yes, why one and not the other?

Because if you concentrate too much firepower in individuals, the threat of mass destruction is too great.

3) Assuming that people with only handguns cannot defeat the government's army and police, why would a 'lack of gun control' (ie as currently in the US) restrict the powers of the government to oppress?

Because you don't need to defeat them, as in a conventional war. You need to cause enough trouble that the system collapses, or, even better, be capable of threatening enough trouble that the system pays attention to you. Violence is better at that than non-violence.

4) Assuming the army and police would not go ahead and slaughter the revolutionaries with their tanks and jets, what would you then have needed guns for in the first place?

Both tanks and jets - as with all high-firepower conventional weaponry - are best suited for dealing with enemy armies, not insurgencies. You would try to minimize contact with the military, which wouldn't be too difficult - most of the problem for the government would be policing/"peacekeeping", as in Iraq.

5) And what if the government oppresses an armed minority and gets support from an also armed majority of citizens?

Then, well, you have civil war. Perhaps that will prevent the majority from oppressing the minority in the first place.

So is there any validity in the idea that allowing everyone a gun decreases the risk of an oppressive dictatorship arising?

Yes, there is.

So here are my questions:

1) Should there be limits on what sort of guns people can own? Handguns? Assault Rifles? RPGs? Attack Helicopters? WMD?

2) If yes, why one and not the other?

3) Assuming that people with only handguns cannot defeat the government's army and police, why would a 'lack of gun control' (ie as currently in the US) restrict the powers of the government to oppress?

4) Assuming the army and police would not go ahead and slaughter the revolutionaries with their tanks and jets, what would you then have needed guns for in the first place?

5) And what if the government oppresses an armed minority and gets support from an also armed majority of citizens?

So is there any validity in the idea that allowing everyone a gun decreases the risk of an oppressive dictatorship arising?
1. Yes. The limits should be that no private citizen can possess a wepaon which can cause mass casualties. This means that anything more destructive than an assault rifle with a rapid fire capability would be prohibited.

2. Inflicting mass casualties is not an effective tactic for revolutionaries. It tends to piss off too many people,

3. Do not underestimate the capabilities of aimed fire by either trained or self-taught riflemen.

4. Tanks and jets are instruments for inflicting mass casualties. Using them against revoutionaries would not only be ineffective, but would generate even more revolutionaries.

5. Then it's not a revolution, it's a civil war, which means that the revolutionaries didn't have the support of the population in the first place, a vital necessity for a revolution.

To answer your final question: yes.

Exactly!
So why did it matter whether or not the mob had pitchforks or revolvers?

Pitchforks could never defeat the soldiers that remained loyal to the tsar.

Pitchforks could never defeat the soldiers that remained loyal to the tsar.
Not to mention that an assault rifle lends a revolutionary a bit more self-protection capability. :)

You need to cause enough trouble that the system collapses, or, even better, be capable of threatening enough trouble that the system pays attention to you.
But the US right-wing is quick to point out that the insurgents in Iraq are losing, that their losses outnumber coalition and Iraqi government losses by quite a margin, and that they didn't achieve any of their political goals.

Plus, what if the government really was ruthless, and could start a serious anti-partisan campaign? Eventually rebels would be forced to fight, if only to protect their homes and families - and then they'd get slaughtered.

Then, well, you have civil war. Perhaps that will prevent the majority from oppressing the minority in the first place.
It didn't in a good number of countries. Be it Jews in Germany (the idea that no one had a gun there is a myth), various groups in the USSR or others, if the minority is small enough, there doesn't have to be any defense happening at all.

And just as a general question - who here on General would back themselves and their mates to take on a company of marines in a gun fight?

Pitchforks could never defeat the soldiers that remained loyal to the tsar.

No, but odds are the troops that switched sides brought guns with them.

I think it would be nice if you responded to my first post in this thread. Might make for a bit of an interesting discussion. :)

Pitchforks could never defeat the soldiers that remained loyal to the tsar.
No, but the troops that defected eventually did.

No, but odds are the troops that switched sides brought guns with them.
I don't have stats but I don't think that the majority of soldiers switched to the Bolshevik side.

And just as a general question - who here on General would back themselves and their mates to take on a company of marines in a gun fight?

Hmm...

Maybe if me and my mates were using assault rifles and the marines were using match-fired guns of the Spanish Armada era.

No, but the troops that defected eventually did.

Right. But all I'm saying is that at the point that the tsar's troops switched sides, it was no longer guns against pitchforks. It was more guns against less guns.

The limits should be that no private citizen can possess a wepaon which can cause mass casualties. This means that anything more destructive than an assault rifle with a rapid fire capability would be prohibited.
An assault rifle can cause "mass casualties", if used in that way, right?

Inflicting mass casualties is not an effective tactic for revolutionaries. It tends to piss off too many people.
Explosives and RPGs are the primary weapon of the insurgency in Iraq. Only few there are skilled enough to use their AK successfully against the military.
Take away explosives and the like from the insurgency, and it's lost a lot of its power right away.

Do not underestimate the capabilities of aimed fire by either trained or self-taught riflemen.
Again, would you back yourself and your friends/family against a platoon of soldiers coming to take over your neighbourhood?

Tanks and jets are instruments for inflicting mass casualties. Using them against revoutionaries would not only be ineffective, but would generate even more revolutionaries.
If a government could be sure that its soldiers will continue to follow orders, that doesn't really matter. If you can drop laser-guided bombs, I don't think anyone cares whether there is one revolutionary or ten.

But the US right-wing is quick to point out that the insurgents in Iraq are losing, that their losses outnumber coalition and Iraqi government losses by quite a margin, and that they didn't achieve any of their political goals.

The Iraqi armed resistance doesn't have all that much popular support at this point. Popular anger is being directed in a sectarian fashion right now, as the US intended, and the occupiers won't be kicked out until that is resolved.

As for outnumbering, of course they are, and of course they would be. Revolutions are bloody affairs. The National Liberation Front in Vietnam, the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and the Front de Libération Nationale in Algeria all had casualties far in excess of government forces, and all ended up winning.

Plus, what if the government really was ruthless, and could start a serious anti-partisan campaign? Eventually rebels would be forced to fight, if only to protect their homes and families - and then they'd get slaughtered.

Wouldn't be worth it for the government, except when two large portions of the population hate each other, as in Sudan. When the state is fighting a popular insurgency, it cannot afford to be too brutal - the military will defect and the economic costs will be severe.

It didn't in a good number of countries. Be it Jews in Germany (the idea that no one had a gun there is a myth), various groups in the USSR or others, if the minority is small enough, there doesn't have to be any defense happening at all.

That's true. It's hardly a sure method.

And just as a general question - who here on General would back themselves and their mates to take on a company of marines in a gun fight?

Not me. But my "mates" and I are hardly representative of the general population, thankfully.

1. An assault rifle can cause "mass casualties", if used in that way, right?

2. Explosives and RPGs are the primary weapon of the insurgency in Iraq. Only few there are skilled enough to use their AK successfully against the military. Take away explosives and the like from the insurgency, and it's lost a lot of its power right away.

3. Again, would you back yourself and your friends/family against a platoon of soldiers coming to take over your neighbourhood?

4. If a government could be sure that its soldiers will continue to follow orders, that doesn't really matter. If you can drop laser-guided bombs, I don't think anyone cares whether there is one revolutionary or ten.
1. No. Even if you permitted fully automatic rifles, the number of people you can kill with one clip is limited to about five or six, and even then you would have to be very lucky. Aimed fire is much more effective. America converted the full-auto M-16 to three round bursts for this very reason.

2. The action in Iraq is not an insurgency. It's more of a civil war which also involves many who have no concerns about local civilian casualties. And explosives are far too easy to make for a ban on them to be effective.

3. No. Of course not. Revolutionaries who win pick the time and place to fight, not allow themselves to be forced to openly confront a force of regulars especially around civilians. Those who do, lose.

4. If we are discussing America ( as I assumed we were ), and if the revolution is at all popular ( which it must be to have any expectation of success ), then large numbers of regular troops will desert to the revolutionary cause. With a massive insurgency, the government will quickly run out of expensive weapons of mass casualties, and will in the process alienate even more people, who will promptly join the revolutionaries.

1) Should there be limits on what sort of guns people can own?

Nope. It would be awesome to say, "Oh, that? That's my Blackhawk. It gets me to work. Home security system? Ever hear of a little thing called AEGIS?"

Personally I do believe that an oppressed people has the right to Rise up using Armed Force, after all that's the way my country (Ireland) got it's independence.

However I do not support the possession of Guns by the public (for all the usual reasons), at least not in peace time.

If a people are being oppressed by a Government or by a Foreign power then Resistance/Revolutionary movements will spring up spontaneously. And they will find ways to arm themselves even in an unarmed society (as happened many times in Irish history).

There have also been numerous times Governments have been peacefully overthrown, Milosevic for instance was taken out by unarmed demonstrators storming government buildings.

The only time when I would think it would be acceptable to Arm everyone, would be if the Country was about to be invaded, it might not stop the invasion but it would be very useful for a Guerrilla movement afterwards.

Ok suppose a Dictatorship is created in a country and the Civilian population is totally unarmed, the only guns in the country being in Government hands. Now there will always be people in the Police or Military who hate the Dictatorship and these people will secretly supply the resistance movements with weapons. Groups will also likely smuggle in weapons from abroad, so even in an unarmed society Armed Groups can spring up very Quickly.
Furthermore, even a small amount of Guns can quickly become a large amount, once there are armed groups they can ambush police and military patrols and take their weapons and so on.

The point is No Government can rule without the support of a least a large section of the Population, so it's really all about the people's support, do they like the status quo or are they in the mood for Revolution, the arms will follow if they choose the later (whether they were armed before or not).

we're constitutionally mandated to have a Revolution if the govt gets too uppity

The point is No Government can rule without the support of a least a large section of the Population...Do you happen to know any Central-Americans or South-Americans?

Nope. It would be awesome to say, "Oh, that? That's my Blackhawk. It gets me to work. Home security system? Ever hear of a little thing called AEGIS?"
Holy shit!

[ reminds self to avoid pissing off K at any cost! ] :eek:

1) Should there be limits on what sort of guns people can own? Handguns? Assault Rifles? RPGs? Attack Helicopters? WMD?

I think that people should be able to own WMD... and on top of that there should be a "concealed carry" law. There would be a lot less robberies if grandma was carrying a nuke in her purse. :sniper:

2) If yes, why one and not the other?

3) Assuming that people with only handguns cannot defeat the government's army and police, why would a 'lack of gun control' (ie as currently in the US) restrict the powers of the government to oppress?

In western countries, people currently live to a very good living standard and people have no need for revolution... because they're just fine. When a government opresses, it is trying to gain power or resources for it's own motives. Because people in western countries have their basic needs well beyond met and the governments have the resources to keep people this way... the government could opress without taking these basic neccessities away. When people have these basic needs met, most are unlikely to take up active revolt even if their civil rights are dwindling. It's mostly in the countries where people are truly suffering that armed conflict transpires.

It wouldn't matter if citizens were allowed to have assualt rifles or not, because as long as people had access to all the amenities and comforts as before, they wouldn't be inclined to use them.

Did the blonde german citizens revolt against hitler? I think not.

4) Assuming the army and police would not go ahead and slaughter the revolutionaries with their tanks and jets, what would you then have needed guns for in the first place?

Because western countries derive their strength through economic grounds, it would make much more sense for revolutionaries to take path of destabilizing the economy... which most often would likely take the path of non-violence, with occasional guerilla action. The military is used to defend or gain crucial territories... which you wouldn't see a whole lot of in a revolution in western countires.

5) And what if the government oppresses an armed minority and gets support from an also armed majority of citizens?

Armed minorities are usually fringe groups, and if the MAJORITY is against them, there's usually reason....

Bottom line... the minority would be crushed

So is there any validity in the idea that allowing everyone a gun decreases the risk of an oppressive dictatorship arising?

Not really, in today's western world, it's an outdated argument. However this doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to own guns.

For instance I use guns to do target shooting at my local club. It's a place where the community tends to unite and socialize... this is not a BAD thing or a DANGEROUS thing. People mostly own guns for non-violent purposes, and disallowing people guns wouldn't stop idiots from hurting other people.... the people who do that don't get their guns legally anyways.

The point is No Government can rule without the support of a least a large section of the Population, so it's really all about the people's support, do they like the status quo or are they in the mood for Revolution, the arms will follow if they choose the later (whether they were armed before or not).
"A little revolution now and then, is a good thing, don't you think?" :D

So is there any validity in the idea that allowing everyone a gun decreases the risk of an oppressive dictatorship arising?

Not really, in today's western world, it's an outdated argument.
I totally disagree.

You've obviously not read all the posts on here where people were ready to rise up just because a Republican was elected President! :D

3. No. Of course not. Revolutionaries who win pick the time and place to fight, not allow themselves to be forced to openly confront a force of regulars especially around civilians. Those who do, lose.
Fair enough. But now go 20 years into the future - now the US Army uses robots, might be working on technology to spot people through walls and can kill them per laser accurately from kilometres away.
What sort of tactic can now make an assault rifle a winning weapon?

4. If we are discussing America ( as I assumed we were ), and if the revolution is at all popular ( which it must be to have any expectation of success ), then large numbers of regular troops will desert to the revolutionary cause. With a massive insurgency, the government will quickly run out of expensive weapons of mass casualties, and will in the process alienate even more people, who will promptly join the revolutionaries.
But if yout think about it...at what point is it necessary for the revolution to be armed?
The army has all the arms a revolution could need. A peaceful protest, or unarmed revolt can be just as good a starter as an armed militia - indeed, a military might be more inclined to join peaceful demonstrators than a militia bend on shooting at them.

And they will find ways to arm themselves even in an unarmed society (as happened many times in Irish history).
A very good point.

Banning guns has never stopped a revolution from occuring.

Because people in western countries have their basic needs well beyond met and the governments have the resources to keep people this way... the government could opress without taking these basic neccessities away.
True - despite everything various Americans have said about their evil government, they have also been quick to put down any allegation that it might be oppressive or undemocratic.

A totalitarian dictatorship would only come about with the consent of many - most likely the patriotic kind, judging from the way Fascist Regimes came about in the past.

Did the blonde german citizens revolt against hitler? I think not.
Some did. But most citizens, regardless of hair colour, were quite happy with the way things were going, or at least didn't believe the alternative could be any better.
And in later years, it was war, and in war people are generally less likely to criticise their leaders because they feel that they depend on them much more.

You've obviously not read all the posts on here where people were ready to rise up just because a Republican was elected President! :D
Smiley this or smiley that - that would be an example of an armed minority misusing their rights, which might be much easier to occur if everyone is sitting on guns.
If getting your hands on an armory could take a while and be quite complex, maybe democratic or non-violent action would seem more attractive.

It's illegal to conspire to overthrow the government, yet we're allowed to be armed in case we need to have a revolution as stated by the constitution. We can't plan it, but we can try and do it. Kind of weird.

1) Should there be limits on what sort of guns people can own? Handguns? Assault Rifles? RPGs? Attack Helicopters? WMD?

2) If yes, why one and not the other?

3) Assuming that people with only handguns cannot defeat the government's army and police, why would a 'lack of gun control' (ie as currently in the US) restrict the powers of the government to oppress?

4) Assuming the army and police would not go ahead and slaughter the revolutionaries with their tanks and jets, what would you then have needed guns for in the first place?

5) And what if the government oppresses an armed minority and gets support from an also armed majority of citizens?

So is there any validity in the idea that allowing everyone a gun decreases the risk of an oppressive dictatorship arising?

1,2)Yes, Teir 0 weapons would be your standard semi-auto or other single pull single shot weapons that simply fire projectiles, not explosives. To get a teir 0 license would simply require a person to be over 18, have no violent felony history, although depending on the offense, they should be able to petition for a liscense, and only violent felony history, not any other felonies. Teir 1 weapons would be burst and automatic rifles and shotguns, as well as sub-machine guns. This would require a major backround check, and a waiting period for the weapons, done before each individual purchase. Obviously, no violent felony history either, at all this time, no petition. A tier 2 license would be full machine guns and limited explosive devices, requiring the most stringent backround check availible, same restrictions apply as a tier 1, with the added caveat of the ATF being able to search your house for illegalities at any time, although not more than twice a year without probable cause. Getting attack helicopters etc.. etc.. could be constued as maintaining a private army and would not count.

3.) Why do you figure this? The approximate population in the US is 295 million.
Say 20% of the population takes up arms. Do you really think that 29.5 million people wouldn't be able to subdue a government even if the army was completely on their side?

4)See 2.

5) This is why you don't give the government much power.



Ergo, yes. Although, one also has to have a tradition of individuality and stubbornness in order to be viable, which is why it is also culture biased.

1,2)Yes, Teir 0 weapons would be your standard semi-auto or other single pull single shot weapons that simply fire projectiles, not explosives. To get a teir 0 license would simply require a person to be over 18, have no violent felony history, although depending on the offense, they should be able to petition for a liscense, and only violent felony history, not any other felonies. Teir 1 weapons would be burst and automatic rifles and shotguns, as well as sub-machine guns. This would require a major backround check, and a waiting period for the weapons, done before each individual purchase. Obviously, no violent felony history either, at all this time, no petition. A tier 2 license would be full machine guns and limited explosive devices, requiring the most stringent backround check availible, same restrictions apply as a tier 1, with the added caveat of the ATF being able to search your house for illegalities at any time, although not more than twice a year without probable cause. Getting attack helicopters etc.. etc.. could be constued as maintaining a private army and would not count.

3.) Why do you figure this? The approximate population in the US is 295 million.
Say 20% of the population takes up arms. Do you really think that 29.5 million people wouldn't be able to subdue a government even if the army was completely on their side?

4)See 2.

5) This is why you don't give the government much power.



Ergo, yes. Although, one also has to have a tradition of individuality and stubbornness in order to be viable, which is why it is also culture biased.

Woot, my Nation has ~2x the population of the US.

Also, I doubt we could get even a million to be driven enough to participate in a revolution, especially if the government had an anti-revolution campaign using slander and patriotism.

It's illegal to conspire to overthrow the government, yet we're allowed to be armed in case we need to have a revolution as stated by the constitution. We can't plan it, but we can try and do it. Kind of weird.
LOL!

A "duly constituted" government is supposedly not one you would want to overthrow. A government which isn't "duly constituted" wouldn't admit to it. So the best way to handle this sort of thing is for the people to decide for themselves. Most revolutions don't begin as well-planned activities, but rather as individuals who decide for themselves that it's time to "kick the bastids out." The planning comes later after the decision has already been made, and almost always after numbers of people have been killed.

1) Should there be limits on what sort of guns people can own? Handguns? Assault Rifles? RPGs? Attack Helicopters? WMD?

My simple answer is basic firearms get unlimited ownership, light "infantry support weapons" limited ownership, and heavier stuff very restricted ownership. More important is what you can open or concealed carry. Owning and using a GPMG, RPG, or light mortar should be OK, if you have a license and aren't just carrying it around on a regular basis. Abuse it in a way that endangers public safety (and that includes "brandishing"), and go to jail.

2) If yes, why one and not the other?

A balance of threat to public safety versus self defense.

3) Assuming that people with only handguns cannot defeat the government's army and police, why would a 'lack of gun control' (ie as currently in the US) restrict the powers of the government to oppress?

4) Assuming the army and police would not go ahead and slaughter the revolutionaries with their tanks and jets, what would you then have needed guns for in the first place?

5) And what if the government oppresses an armed minority and gets support from an also armed majority of citizens?

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]So is there any validity in the idea that allowing everyone a gun decreases the risk of an oppressive dictatorship arising?


To quote Mao Zedong's maxim "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

A certain amount of that political power should be left in the hands of the people. As I mentioned above, it's a balancing act.

I want to talk about the angle that people sometimes use about an armed populace guaranteeing freedom from oppression.
<snip>
So is there any validity in the idea that allowing everyone a gun decreases the risk of an oppressive dictatorship arising?

Sure - however believing that gunownership is the only way is where many people go wrong. Simply not doing what the government wants you to do for example also works, provided enough people participate and none of them mind risking execution.

Again, would you back yourself and your friends/family against a platoon of soldiers coming to take over your neighbourhood?

Yup. I have a few friends that can handle weapons, and if we're allowed any weapon, a combination of a couple of support weapons and a six cylinder m203 launcher ambushing from inside three different buildings firing down, we could take out a very large number of men. A small group, we could take down easily. In a straight fight we'd be slaughtered, but since when do revolutionaries fight 'fair'?

Why do you figure this? The approximate population in the US is 295 million.
Say 20% of the population takes up arms. Do you really think that 29.5 million people wouldn't be able to subdue a government even if the army was completely on their side?
The US Military is a pretty powerful thing, wouldn't you agree? Really, what can those 29.5 million people (a pretty high number really) do with their handguns against a force created to destroy the Soviet Red Army, which might end up being approximately the same size but infinitely better armed?

To defeat the US Military (ie really manage to clear some areas of their presence in order to break the power of the government there) you'd need a lot more than Glocks and AKs.

...if we're allowed any weapon...
You're allowed any weapon you would think should be legal to own. If you feel okay with your neighbour owning grenade launchers and javelin missiles, then I suppose so.

But then, the Marines would also be allowed everything in their arsenal. And that might include Apaches and Warthogs.

My point was really that your average soldier is better trained with his weaponry than your average member of the armed citizenry, despite what those civilians might claim at times.

Again, would you back yourself and your friends/family against a platoon of soldiers coming to take over your neighbourhood?

I couldn't count on my current neighbors to take a platoon. But back in the states, it'd be a different story. In rural Iowa, where my family currently resides, I'd give varying odds for them and their neighbors, depending on the situation. Up against a platoon of green soldiers, I'd give the local Iowa farmers, properly armed (under my above standard - including light support weapons) at least even odds. A good portion of the population has served in the military - take 50 of their male neighbors, and you'll find something like 1/3 have served in the military, including (as far as I recall) a former Special Forces Sgt. ("green beret" - the guys who specialize in organising guerrillas and conducting unconventional warfare). Next, hunting is a way of life, and that gives skills beyond firearms. Finally, they know the lay of the land.

Give Sgt. N. time to organise and train up the locals, and assuming every vet is included, and it'd be even odds against even a regular platoon.

Now granted, that's not every neighborhood, but there are enough out there like it to make a nastly little revolution if push came to shove.

I totally disagree.

You've obviously not read all the posts on here where people were ready to rise up just because a Republican was elected President! :D
not just ANY republican--but a neocon nazi Traitor like Bush

It's illegal to conspire to overthrow the government, yet we're allowed to be armed in case we need to have a revolution as stated by the constitution. We can't plan it, but we can try and do it. Kind of weird.
atually Our Founding Fathers said we were supposed to have a Revolution every 20 years or so and they explicity said if the Govt Misbehaves a Revolution is a legitimate expression of People Power (which it is)