Quoth PatriotGrrrl:
The last time the US had a civil war, we didn’t have air-dropped bombs, but we managed to burn some of our own cities to the ground anyway.
He asked if Hitler disarmed the citizens. As you quoted, that was the Weimar Republic. Since he question was (I presume) prompted by the same question mentioned by the querent in the column, I think the answer is no.
Mmmmm…Honeybaked. Bricker, I’ll trade you a glass of Macallan 12 Year Old for a couple of slices of ham.
Contrary to popular opinion in certain quarters, and armed society is not necessarily a polite society in any sense of the word. One need only look at many nations of Africa to determine that the common possession of firearms or other weapons has not endowed safety, security, or liberty upon the populace. On the other hand, arms in private hands can certainly complicate the plans of despots and invaders alike, hence the Swiss predilection (although admittedly declining in recent years) for maintaining a heavily armed populace, and their success at maintaining what is arguably the oldest modern democratic confederation (dating back to the Congress of Vienna) against threats foreign and domestic. It is foolish to argue that the private possession of firearms has not had some significant degree of influence upon the history of nations, although it is obvious to the student of modern military history that small arms play an increasingly limited role in modern warfare.
It should be considered, also, that while the most evident intend of the drafters or the Bill of Rights was to provide for the national defense, they also recognized the utility of privately owned weapons for more prosaic uses, including hunting, varmitting, and defense of person and property. While many modern residents may enjoy supermarkets, animal control, and robust and active law enforcement, there is nonetheless still the valid argument that all of these functions may frequently revert to private citizens, particularly in the case of temporary breakdown of governance as has been observed during natural disasters or civil disruptions, even in the most civilized of nations.
I’d rather read than shoot anyone on any given day, but when it comes to face-down time with some unpleasant person who values my property more than my life, I’d rather have a Sig P220 rather than Huck Finn in hand, and I suspect that Sam Clemens would agree with me on that point.
Stranger
I don’t own a gun right now, but I have in the past.
Gee, I hate sound like an ass, but the Constitution is the Constitution. It can be changed. If the majority of states decide that citizens of the United States should not have the right to bear arms, there is a mechanism in place to take it away.
The North still felt they were Americans and the North was still governed by the Constitution.
Same mechanism that could remove, or curtail Free speech? How many Americans would like a flag burning amendment, or maybe the church and state to be a little less separate?
Fuck that noise. Leave the Bill of Rights alone unless you’re adding rights to it.
Note that oliversarmy said “can”, not “should”. An appropriate supermajority can, in fact, take away either or both of the First and Second Amendments. If this fact is troubling to you, then you can do your part to make sure that there is not such a supermajority.
Yes and you failed to note I acknowledged that mechanism.
Just the idea that people would is distasteful. If one right is up for debate why not the others? I mean we have to fight terrorism you know. You don’t have anything to hide do you? Lets just roll back that little thing about unwarranted search and seizer. It’s for the safety of your kids. You love your kids don’t you?
Do you think we can respect the constitution without actually owning the guns we’re allowed to own? Or maybe by voluntarily keeping it down to one gun per household (or city block) or something? I think our obsession with guns goes far beyond respect for the constitution, and I also don’t believe that most people own handguns for that reason. Not primarily, not secondarily, or even as an afterthought. It’s a noble-sounding excuse, but it doesn’t ring true, in my experience.
[quote]
Sinaijon: Do you honestly think that if it came to armed conflict, every enlistee, veteran, Reservist, and National Guardsman would all side with the ‘government’?
[quote]
Some of the students at Kent State on May 4, 1970 were armed with rocks and were throwing them. The National Guard fired into the crowd killing four students and wounded nine. Some of the students were not participating in the demonstration, but were on their way to classes.
These National Guardsmen sided with the government. Apparently even the perfectly innocent had no Constitutional protection.
I’ve never felt strongly about gun rights; never really formed much of an opinion on the subject. But this changed my mind. Very good points all around. Thanks.
That’s awful, but it’s also not quite what we’re talking about here. I do think if the gov. went haywire, many soldiers would remain loyal to the government. But many would not. My husband is in the Air Force, which isn’t the most gung ho branch of the military, but still. For most of these men, it’s a job. It isn’t more important to them than their families. If it’s between fighting for the gov or their family’s land, its going to be the latter, especially if there is a significant sort of rebel movement going on. From the guys I’ve talked to, anyway. YMMV.
Not that anyone’s going to listen to me, but the German gun laws introduced in the 1920s and 1930s didn’t “Ban” guns or “Disarm” the entire populace- they required guns to have serial numbers, and required people to apply for a permit to buy one (which was likely granted unless you were Jewish, Communist, or otherwise on the Verboten list.) If you were simply Herr Johann Schmidt, Average German who wanted a hunting rifle, then it wasn’t likely a problem. You needed a permit for Handguns, but they were still available to civilians; you just couldn’t have a 9mm Parabellum pistol.
Not picking on you Airman (and I’m posting as someone who owns and carries), but I’ve seen this position before on this board, and I must admit it baffles me. Surely your right to own is based largely if not completely on the forbearance of a majority, and if not a majority, perhaps as a result of a very powerful lobby? Is it not possible that the rights given to you by your Constitution can just as easily be taken away from you? If so, surely there is another reason you own guns? Self defence maybe?
We do not owe our rights to the forbearance of a majority. The majority simply cannot do anything about it short of passing a Constitutional amendment. In our history some of our fundamental rights have been abridged, some have been expanded, and some have been rendered irrelevant, but none have been removed. It’s not the gun lobby that keeps the 2nd Amendment in place, it’s the knowledge that once we start removing rights once seen as fundamental there’s no going back.
I surely do have my own reasons, but I am not obligated to disclose those reasons, and what’s the point anyway? Someone will tell me how full of crap I am, how I’m a big scaredy-cat, ask me why I need a gun, ad infinitum. Why should I subject myself to that when I do not owe anybody any explanation about why I choose to exercise a right? It’s that simple.
I realize that this topic always starts emotionally and gets worse, but this thread had been nearly civil prior to this post.
You can make your points without this sort of overt hostility and rudeness. Otherwise, take it to the Pit.
[ /Modding ]
Fair enough.
ETA - responding to Airman.
I apologize. Man, it was all good up to the last line.
So you’ve voluntarily chosen to participate in an online discussion, and have offered opinions as part of that, but get riled when people ask you to expand on what you’ve posted.
Seems a bit odd, no?
No, I offered my opinion. If I may quote myself:
The extent of my participation in these threads is in the legal discussion. I have not, nor will I ever, justify my ownership. There is a difference between an academic discussion and a personal one, and when it gets personal I want nothing to do with it.
Also, I did not get “riled” at being asked to elaborate. I was emphatic in the hopes that some of you might read it and stop asking for justification where none is owed or necessary.
Firstly, the federal government is not the only government in the United States, nor the only government that may need rebelling against.
Local governments are far more likely to impose unreasonable and immoral restrictions on their citizens.
Secondly, if the worst would ever happen?
I am not an army of one. I am an army of several dozen, capable of destruction of supplies, denial of roads, and harassment and sabotage at fairly large scales.
Having a gun is, however, fairly necessary to assist me in said mission.
Could I stop an advancing army? No. Especially not alone. But could I buy time? Yeah. Yeah, I think I could.
(I’m a wargamer, and it’s always more fun to run battles on local terrain.)