[Variola]

I am not sure I could trust a supposed man of god who combined his Clint Eastwood and his Robert de Niro
   

I am not sure I could trust a man who would know a man of god was mixing up his famous lines...  []


On the subject of guns, don't ban guns, just ban ammunition  []

[CliffordK]

The first thing one would expect any conquering government to do is to get the guns out of the hands of the people, and the inability to do so is one of the reasons why the USA is having such a tough time in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Around the world there are many Military Coups, and Dictators taking and holding power by force.  An armed populace, while it does carry a risk of breeding radicals, can also prevent total collapse of the legitimate government.

Having half of the world's military controlled by the USA, I have to question whether there would ever be a fullscale ground assault on the USA.  No doubt if it happened, it would be bloody to the point of making WWI trench warfare look like child's play.

Nor can I imagine a single General having enough power for a military Coup, although it is possible that the military would someday question the orders given by the civilian government.

I do think of handguns as an "offensive" weapon, and don't believe they are necessary in our modern society.  Rifles and shotguns have much more sports&hunting applications, and are far more defensive around the house.

I do have to question whether the USA, China, and Russia should be exporting weapons to other countries.

[imatfaal]

I am not sure I could trust a supposed man of god who combined his Clint Eastwood and his Robert de Niro
  

I am not sure I could trust a man who would know a man of god was mixing up his famous lines...  []

I am absolutely certain you are correct on that point - to my shame...

Around the world there are many Military Coups, and Dictators taking and holding power by force.  An armed populace, while it does carry a risk of breeding radicals, can also prevent total collapse of the legitimate government.

CK
I appreciate the sentiment behind your post and agree with much of it; I have one question - has a legitimate government really ever been defended by a gun holding populace?  My history is pretty lamentable so I ask merely for information rather than in a rhetorical way.  The UK exports a ridiculous amount of weapons and the promised ethical policy to constrain this practice is now 13 years overdue from its manifesto promise

Matthew

[graham.d]

Matthew, I would say the answer is probably yes, at least in part. I mentioned Israel as a case in point where they have a system where a large part of the population are conscripted at periods through their life for military training and retraining. The Kibbutz system was not set up just for picking fruit - they were intended as a first line of defence against attack by ground forces. To what extent they are a deterrent and to what extent they have been effective in the past I am not sure. Of course this does not mean a large number of Israelis carry handguns, though some do.

[CliffordK]

Unfortunately my US History around the Revolutionary War period, Articles of the Confederation, and early constitution period is a bit weak.  I would assume that the British tried to take the guns away from the American Citizens.  But, perhaps you could argue the the British were the legitimate government, and the revolutionaries were just a coup.

I suppose our American Forefathers were a bit radical... 

When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
[...]
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
[...]
it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

As far as history...
If you look at WWII, many European countries including France and Italy celebrate a group of individuals called Partisans, Resistance Fighters, or Freedom Fighters.  I suppose one might question whether guns, or military intelligence was their major contribution to the war effort.  Perhaps both.  Perhaps it was just never fully accepting being conquered.

The problem that the USA had with our invasion of Vietnam was the it was impossible to tell the difference between the Vietcong, and the general population. 

When Russia invaded Afghanistan, they ran into the same issue.  An armed population that didn't want them there.  I suppose you may ask whether the arms were held internally, or supplied by an external force.  Does it really matter?  The people who drove the Russians out weren't trained in fancy government training camps.

Iran & Iraq just got out of a bloody 10-year war...  that really resolved nothing.

You would think that the American Politicians would have read their history books, but apparently an "A" in History isn't required to become president of the USA.  Within days of the Iraq invasion, the Iraq army officially fell.  The government has been toppled...  yet 8 years later, and we're still fighting....  that damn stubborn population that just won't give up.  Are they "Insurgents" or "Resistance Fighters", or perhaps a bit of both.

And, no, I never supported the invasion of Iraq, although I had always believed that it would lead to Muslims fighting Christians, rather than Muslims fighting Muslims. 

The only way to truly win the war is to disarm the people.  Although, perhaps that is a bit imperialistic thinking.  One really needs to win their hearts, and one can't do that by marching tanks down the streets.

Having guns out in the population with people who know how to use them makes it that much harder for the population to be conquered.

Single shot & semi-automatic against fully automatic guns?  I don't know, most hunting rifles have very good scopes...  which counts for a lot.  And, one may not have enough ammunition to indiscriminately fire.

[Richard88]

The citizens of the United States of America believe in absolute freedom.  It is guaranteed to the people, by LAW, that you have an INHERENT RIGHT THAT NOBODY CAN TAKE AWAY.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the general populace to overthrow the government, should it become tyrannical and oppressive.

I'm all for personal responsibility but I don't think it follows that the collective responsibility

I read all of what you wrote, but this is the part that chilled me to the bone.

I can think of another group that viewed the collective at a higher level than the individual.


[Image resized to 'sensible' - Mod]

As of late, it appears the UK has been using "Nineteen Eighty Four" as an instruction manual.  How's the whole CCTV network thing working out for you?  Has the minitrue been put together yet?  Yes, I do speak at the extreme.

But, the entirety of the UK is disarmed.  Should the government become oppressive, what would you use to stop them?  Harsh language?

The rights of the individual trump that of the collective always.  There is no collective.  Only the many to serve the few.

Throughout history, there is a repeating cycle.  That is that all governments can and will turn oppressive.  It's a matter of whether of not you will have the proper agent to dispatch of those who wish ill upon all that is good.

Hitler, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-Il, Pol Pott, Mehmed V Reshad, and Stalin all agree : Gun control works.

There will always be the deaths of the innocent.  Whether a gun, knife, car, your hands, or even free speech (loose lips, sink ships).  Whether caused by irresponsibility, or with criminal intent.  They will continue to happen and no amount of legislation will stop that.  People have been killing each other through irresponsibility and murder since the dawn of time.  No words on a piece of paper is going to stop that.

[JP]

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the general populace to overthrow the government, should it become tyrannical and oppressive.

I suspect that become an impossibility somewhere before or during the cold war.  Military technology is just too far beyond civilian guns for this to be a real possibility anymore. 

Interestingly, this is one of the reasons that the American civil war lasted so long.  The South had a lot more guns and people trained to use them, so they had a big advantage early on.  The North, however, had most of the industry so eventually their production ramped up enough to counter this advantage.

By the way, I'm also curious why this thread is attracting so many first-time posters?  Are people lurking on the forums to post about this, or are people Googling for gun threads and finding this one to post on?

[graham.d]

It depends on what you mean by "oppressive". I can see a situation where a substantial minority can be come oppressed by the majority for example. You make take taxation as an example; the more well off members of society already pay a higher amount in tax. If this became punitive they may say enough is enough and decide to take direct action if they found that their government (elected by a majority) decided not to change things. Not so different from how the American revolution started. This is effectively allowing the power of the gun to attempt to overthrow an elected government. Another example, more recently, would be the demands for equal rights by black people in the southern states. You probably would agree that resorting to armed insurrection today (in either case) would not be a good idea. On the other hand if you are speaking of oppression of the majority then this is decided by the ballot box isn't it? All the examples you gave are totalitarian states. Democracies have their problems, but the constitution permits changing them via the ballot box and that this be tested on a regular basis. The constitutions of most democracies prevent governments from taking absolute power on an indefinite basis.

You may not like the word "collective" because of past associations with Orwell's 1984 or with its use associated with communism, (or maybe you are thinking of the "Borg" in StarTrek) but it is just describing the whole population which agree on a set of rules to live together. All societies do this from primitive tribes to sophisticated democracies - they all have agreed rules of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. This agreement is best reached "collectively" and generally this is accepted by the majority of law abiding citizens. The alternative is anarchy.

You may think you are "free" but you are conditioned by your upbringing and surrounding influences all the time. And you are rightly controlled by the laws imposed upon you by your government. This is not unreasonable but it is good to be aware of it, especially by how much influence is wielded by the media, your own government and, indirectly, from powerful lobby groups. You have to think why a large number of Americans think differently about gun laws than the vast majority of Brits. I don't think there is so much difference in our cultural heritage to affect this, but there is a huge difference (whoever is right or wrong). Another example is why a majority of Canadians do not believe in human influenced global warming. I would not debate that one way or another here, but would point out that such a view would probably not be expected from the very ecologically minded Canadian culture until you realise that Canada is huge exporter of oil; the US is is its biggest customer and Canada is the USA's largest supplier. I would not expect individual Canadians to be influenced by the net benefit of this to their country, but they are pursuaded that the science behind the idea is flawed by the media they view and/or read. But this is another subject.

[Geezer]

If I did get a gun, I wouldn't have anywhere to keep it. Our house doesn't have a gun lobby.