[civilian_number_two]

If the "right to bear arms" is there so an opressed populace can fight back against tyranny, then it has to be legal for independent militias to accumulate masses of all manner of arms, be they patriot missiles, suitcase bombs, or nuclear warheads. These sorts of groups are always delacred "subversive" and murdered en masse with no arrests. And the "right to bear arms" is always limited to guns. Hmm.

Allowing the populace to arm themselves with AK-47s is not considered subversive, and the patriots and freedom lovers are thrilled by the idea that they could one day fight for their rights against the best-armed military on Earth. This is allowed because anyone in the army would consider it an unrealistic joke that small cells of gun-toting folks hiding out in the Ozarks could challenge the continent-wide reach of missile strikes and the reasonably extensive intelligence held by the FBI. ot to mention that even in a guerilla ambush, the ambushed army will have better communication and air supoport. If the guerillas limit themselves to civilian targets, the tyranny will not be dissuaded and the populace will turn on the guerillas (see IRA).

I can't think of an example in all of history of a well-armed populace turning out a local tyrant without help from their own army, a political assassination, or a foreign military power. It's nice to say they can pester the army by remaining guerillas the whole time, but they'll never take key military installations or cities without at least one open fight, and now you have Boudicaa or Spartacus or Crazy Horse. Perhaps my history isn't so good, but why did Saddam stay in power so long if he was so bad?

PS: This whole thread about guns being cowardly: I'm not getting in on that; I think stabbing someone in the eye with a pencil becuase he asked you for change is cowardly as well. The business with guns is that they are easy to use. I return to my example of the 9-year old girl; she probably could't kill me with a katana either (although in this case I will withdraw the notion that I am asleep when she attacks). Do we believe that attempted murder is common enough to warrant making it easy? Would it not be more pragmatic to accept a little murder in order that we might have a lot less?

[James12345]

knives have a practical use.
cars have a practical use.
glass has a practical use.

GUNS DON'T.

the kill. that's what they do. that's all they do. that's what they're made for...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So are katana swords? All weapons, do you want to ban all weapons?

[Mnesymone]

What Barend said... with gusto and eloquence.
A gun is a piece of technology that was designed, and is redesigned, for the express purpose of killing or seriously wounding human beings.
A can of mace is designed to injure or pacify.
A windowpane is designed to keep out the weather.
Though there are guns that are said to be 'self-defense', by virtue of being a gun this means 'to defend one's self with the threat of death/serious injury or by causing death/serious injury in an agressor'
There are guns that are hunting guns, but these are guns that are simply intended to be pointed at animals - however they are still designed as killing devices.
So - glass or deep water or cars or fishbones or wolverines can kill you.
However, none of them are designed to kill humans (except the wolverines... bad example there.) - in fact, glass and cars are being designed with features intended to mitigate the danger - impact-lessening chassis features in car or shatterproof glass.
They are not comparable examples.

Then knives, katanas etc are slightly comparable - however, a man with a knife may only kill at close range, as with a man with a katana. A man with a longbow may kill at range, but cannot fire more than a dozen times in a minute, nor can it fire at considerable distance.
They are not comparable in magnitude to a gun - even those little four-chambered derringers ladies buy to put in their purse next to a chihuahua. Especially not next to a high-powered hunting rifle with a telescopic sight, a modern shotgun or an assault rifle.

final point - though not quite Barendesque, if threatened by an unarmed man, I could knock the wind out of him and run like a bitch. If threatened by someone with a gun I could cop a bullet in the lungs and drown in my own blood.

If this post is dated, please appreciate that Civ and James clipped me making it.

This post has been edited by Mnesymone: 11 August 2005 - 12:31 AM

[barend]

yeah, and what's even with that argument...

banning guns will only reduce mureders...

i mean, that's always my argument (removing the 'only'), and yet people use it as theirs to defend.

it's the american way of life...

fast food, and even faster deaths.

---------------------
EDIT: Note: this post was made after civs...
WTF happened?

This post has been edited by barend: 11 August 2005 - 12:41 AM

[barend]

kudos myn.

no one climbs a clock tower and offs 37 people with japanesse sword.

[Slade]

they are an unneccassary thing to have around.
they can only destroy things...

and slade, you are too creative a person to be into them.

Uh... thanks, I guess? I'm not quite confused enough by that to not be touched, I think.

I suppose that I'm just too much of a silly idealist who likes to target shoot (all of my targets look like Dante's vision of the 10 Circles of Hell - the last thing I'd ever want to do is shoot a person), and wishes that the world was more of a place where that could happen, and less of one with drive-by shootings and the minority of stupid people forcing laws on the responsible ones by proxy...

And I don't like hunting with guns because I think it's as lame as bringing a gun to a knife fight. I want to see someone stalk a deer with a combat knife, and then leap on the thing, wrestle it to the ground, and slit its throat, not shoot it in the chest from 100 yards in a hunting stand while bait is set out for the deer to graze.

Out of curiosity, what's your standpoint on shoot outs/duels where both parties are equally matched?

Edit: Totally spelled proxy wrong.

This post has been edited by Slade: 11 August 2005 - 03:38 AM

[JW Wells]

If the "right to bear arms" is there so an opressed populace can fight back against tyranny, then it has to be legal for independent militias to accumulate masses of all manner of arms, be they patriot missiles, suitcase bombs, or nuclear warheads.  These sorts of groups are always delacred "subversive" and murdered en masse with no arrests.  And the "right to bear arms" is always limited to guns.  Hmm.

Oh, c'mon. Find anywhere I argued that anybody should be allowed to own crew-served or heavy individual (anti-tank, anti-air) weapons.

Allowing the populace to arm themselves with AK-47s is not considered subversive, and the patriots and freedom lovers are thrilled by the idea that they could one day fight for their rights against the best-armed military on Earth.  This is allowed because anyone in the army would consider it an unrealistic joke that small cells of gun-toting folks hiding out in the Ozarks could challenge the continent-wide reach of missile strikes and the reasonably extensive intelligence held by the FBI.  ot to mention that even in a guerilla ambush, the ambushed army will have better communication and air supoport.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look, I don't think I'm getting my point across here, since I keep repeating myself. Assuming that 100% of the US military came down on the side of a theoretical tyranny, even then they wouldn't have enough troops to pacify everywhere at once. Military doctrine says you concentrate your forces to attack, pool your air support and armor assets to overwhelm an adversary, etc. If there's an outbreak in Hoboken, NJ, and you mass troops, ship tanks by rail, coordinate your air wings in New England, etc. a properly organized partisan force will split up and lie low, leaving you nothing to smash with all of your overwhelming force. Meanwhile, you don't have those troops, tanks, planes in San Diego, where a national resistance could take advantage to strike at undefended locations. I'm not Mao Zedong here, I'm not going to be able to explain guerilla war from a standing start. Suffice it to say that the partisan doesn't have to win big, stand-up battles to prevail.

A lot of people on this board do not trust the public with weapons. And it looks like they have a lot of contempt for the intelligence and judgement of the public. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I do, however, want to point out that trust of the average citizen's judgement is one of the underlying philosophical principles behind modern democratic self-government. Take that away and we're back to Hobbes arguing for Leviathan.

[JW Wells]

can't think of an example in all of history of a well-armed populace turning out a local tyrant without help from their own army, a political assassination, or a foreign military power. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Off the top of my head:

-The Swiss/Burgundian wars of the 15th century (they had some money slipped to them by the King of France, but no military support)
-The Hussite Wars
-The French Revolution

[barend]

alot of french revolutionaries were military personel... were'nt they?

Out of curiosity, what's your standpoint on shoot outs/duels where both parties are equally matched?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

as long as they're not in a populated area i guess...

but isn't winning a fight because you're a good aim a bit of a shallow victory?

[Mnesymone]

The old-fashioned pistol duel isn't really honourable, but its an alright way to fight to the death if you insist on it. Just so long as there are no innocent bystanders.

JW Wells - Not sure about the Swiss/Burgundians and Hussites off the top of my head, but the French Revolution fielded a substantial army.
It wasn't just a large enough army to see the revolution succeed, it was enough to counter foreign armies that attempted to replace the monarchy.
And your guerilla warfare example is shoddy - conventional military theory does dictate the use of tactical bombing, armour, motorised infantry in concentrated doses, but most armies are also equipped for unconventional fights.
Attack helicopters, light attack and observation aircraft, special forces squads, light autonomous commandoes and all that jazz. If there was an organised military dictatorship, civilian militias would have minimal impact. Think of the insurgents and paramilitaries in occupied Iraq - they are being noticed, they are doing damage, but they are not gaining any results. Then think of Gandhi, who led a civilian resistance without using so much as a solid whacking stick, let alone the .44 Magnum Jack Armstrong the All-American Boy keeps in his cabinet next to his M16.

[Slade]

Last unapocryphal statement by me on this thread: I'm not going into the whole military versus guerilla thing.

but isn't winning a fight because you're a good aim a bit of a shallow victory?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only in the sense that winning a fight because you're better at sword play or bigger/stronger than everyone else is shallow... Kinda depends on circumstances. Blah... I don't feel like babbling any more.

[barend]

but you do and you will...

a sword is still only an extention of your arm. it requires finess, intuition, style, co-ordination, strength, agility, and good pokerface...

unarmed combat is still more admirable because a small guy can still take ona big guy if he is skilled enough.

guns turn any pussy into a killing machine.

if killing anyone with a gun is admirable or justifiable or worthy of note than so is a suicide bombing.

[civilian_number_two]

Oh, c'mon.  Find anywhere I argued that anybody should be allowed to own crew-served or heavy individual (anti-tank, anti-air) weapons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never said you argued in their favour, only that you should be arguing in their favour. Remind me again why you're in favour of Guns and NOT anti-tank or anti-air weapons? Why guns and NOT bombs? The right to bear arms has been limited to those weapons the US army wouldn't have any trouble dealing with. Therefore the right to bear arms has nothing to do with stockpiling against tyranny. Were you to peacefully prepare for a possible revolution, collecting the sorts of weapons you needed, you would be branded a terrorist and probably murdered without trial, with full coverage on CNN.

The examples off the top of your head: 1, maybe I missed the point, but wasn't that a war between Switzerland and Bergundia? ; 2, a 15th century (!) Civil War involving numerous interested parties and foreign powers, including the Pope, and frankly in a decentralized feudal society Lords and Knights attacking a King is not the same as common citizenry attacking the US Army; 3, a Civil War where the Army attacked the ruling elite (the example in fact that I had in mind when I said the army needs to turn on the leader for the revolution to work). I guess I should have been careful to say that I was trying to imagine examples of a populace turning on an empire as large and organized as the US Army (yes, there have been many), without help. The only such regimes I can think of all fell to foreign powers, internal coups or gradual decline. I can't think of a real revolution of the sort that you're describing.

I appreciate what you're saying about guerrillas being a nuisance, and I know that the US is a big country, but these guerrillas are NOT going to know when and where to strike to throw the Army off guard unless they have help from the army itself. Your notion that the size of the country and the reach of the military would work to the Army's advantage is basically an argument that it's the land mass itself that would win in a Revolution, whether the rebels had real weapons or not. Hell, in that case why not just have a revolution of rioters breaking shop windows and throwing Molotov cocktails, if in your scenario the army can NEVER find them, that the rebels can just disappear into the shadows like Zorro whenever the heat shows up? What do you need guns for, if you're never going to need to use them? The ability of the Army intelligence to get members inside guerrilla cells would be just one of the many ways in which the Army was superior in tactics and execution. The other, of course would be those "crew-served or heavy individual (anti-tank, anti-air) weapons."

PS: for the record, I don't have a serious problem with people owning guns. This business of carrying them concealed in public when there are no wild animals around, that's just mass hysteria fuelled by stupid movies. But guns themselves, held and stored responsibly, don't bother me. There are loads of guns in Canada, by the way, and people can buy and own them, no matter what Mr Moore tried to tell you. The justification that gun ownership will protect us from tyranny is what rankles. You can get a gun in Iraq. Anyone can get one, and a lot of folks will show you how to use one. Saddam Hussein remained in power despite the well-armed populace. And frankly, let's be serious: the Gun lobby is big, but if the government felt that gun owners were a danger to their Army, the NRA would not receive Republican support. They would be called terrorists.

[Jordan]

Ya I was about to say the french revolution had an army on it's side, and it was that army that ended up taking over and placing Napoleon in the top seat at an emporer (for a short term).

I agree, if you buy guns for protection (robbers or revolutions-for or against) then you're buying guns for the wrong reasons.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 12 August 2005 - 01:25 AM

[James12345]

a sword is still only an extention of your arm. it requires finess, intuition, style, co-ordination, strength, agility, and good pokerface...

unarmed combat is still more admirable because a small guy can still take ona big guy if he is skilled enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See this is what I was hoping you would say.

That you believe as a stronger or more skilled combatant deserves to win. Its his right...

Well a 9mm could beat a M4 if the shooter is skilled enough too.

See Barend, the world has changed, guns are now the conventional weapons of the day. Maybe less elegant than lightsabers, but how honorable is having a dagger stabbed in your groin or armpit and being left to bleed to death or die of infection?