“It’s not the ownership of guns that protects a free society. It is the right to such ownership, and the defence of that right, that keeps us from totalitarianism.”
Exactly, and that’s why I targeted the tyranny argument. If it’s a freedom issue, the discussion changes. What limits should we put on that freedom (ex: you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre).
I said:
“If your principle is to allow citizens to protect themselves against the possibility of government tyranny, then would you be for the right for people to own nuclear arms?”
Spoof’s response:
“This is one of those ridiculous ‘blown-out-of-proportion’ arguments.”
True. But so is arguing banning cars and knives. Sometimes you need to go to the extremes to show the flaws of an argument. I also feel the whole corrupt government topic is one of those ridiculous “blown out-of-proportion” arguments.
Sure, as you have shown by applying reason to my point, no reasonable force would use such a haphazard means. However, reasonably, such a force couldn’t really gain such power anyway, guns or not. We may not be able to match the government with weaponry, but we can match (if not beat) them with communication. It tries something funny, the media is all over it.
“When you’ve got 200,000,000 potential rebels running around, the vast majority of which would be hidden and covert, I’d like to see how you’d suggest tapping their lines of communication.”
Continuing from my last point: If the majority of people are against your government, it’s doomed. That’s what probably happened to the Soviets. No rebellion, but the system lost its grip on the people and crumbled. As long as the people are made aware, the government doesn’t have a chance.
“Think of it this way… was Alexander the Great replaceable? Or Genghis Khan? Or Adolf Hitler?”
Well, I don’t know about the other two, but Hitler took his own life as the Nazis were on the decline. Hitler’s action probably further dispirited the populace’s support, but it was going down anyway. If Hitler was killed at the height of his power, officials would have used his death to energize the conviction against the Allies.
Also, the Communists stayed in power decades after Stalin died.
“People do not NEED nuclear weapons to defend themselves, or for use in recreation, or to hold a corrupt military force at bay.”
Well, I agree with the first two points. Call me dense (as I’m sure some of you will 
), but I just can’t see how you could defeat tyranny with force if they can out muscle you (not just in strength, but also numbers). I’ll address the tactics arguments later.
“In addition, personal ownership of nuclear arms would inflict far more harm than good (if it’s used for home defense, it would obliterate the whole friggin’ city). Third, just the passive presence of a nuclear weapon creates a risk for the owner, as a civilian wouldn’t have the necessary equipment or ability to ensure that radiation armoring is properly kept, nor would they be capable of ensuring that said weapon would be in proper working order when it was needed.”
I think we agree here. You’re weighing the right to bear arms against the threat it could cause. By now, I’m sure you’re getting tired of the nuclear argument. There’s a reason I use it.
I was in chat room debating the right to own armor-piercing bullets (dubbed “Cop Killer Bullets”). The odds of someone breaking in your house with armor on are pretty much non-existent. But the standard defense was “If the government has it, we need it as well to protect ourselves”. Naturally, I took that notion to its extremes. But I don’t need to.
Are you for the right to own armor-piercing bullets? Why or why not? What about grenades? Those are affordable enough. The reason I asked for principles (anyone even remember the OP?), is that I can understand the freedom argument, I can understand the criminal arguments, but I just don’t see the Government issue.
Think of it this way. There are many organisations that feel the current government is a tyrannical one (some environmentalists, animal rights activists, anti-abortionists…) You can bet that if these groups had their way, they’d be a threat to the current interests. So the government has a list of these organizations. Sure they may be able to get the occasional hit, but nothing that would make a dent in the current scheme of things. If the group did have enough support, you can bet the politicians would be whoring their votes (and democracy will win out). So if it were a small groups, it wouldn’t make much difference. If it’s a large group, then it could gain influence democratically. That’s why I don’t buy the corrupt argument.
I’m running short on time so I’ll just address a couple more points.
Freedom:
“I feel like I can’t turn on the news without seeing horror stories about 911 calls taking a 1/2 hour to respond to, if a cop even shows up.”
Is this a common occurrence? Besides, 911 reponse times aren’t a threat to government interests.
“Nobody is claiming it would be easy, quick or clean, but I think you are are giving the gov’t WAY to much credit.”
There’s not doubt that rebels could do a bit of damage, but the more dangerous the situation gets to those in power, the more they’d be willing to use extreme measure. Even if it takes 30 minutes to get there, I would be a simple matter of using just enough force to subdue the opposition. No need for overkill. But it wouldn’t be quick, clean or easy.
ExTank:
"Read “Blackhawk Down: A Story of Modern War” by Mark Bowden.
It will quickly and finally disabuse you of this notion that our armed forces are omnipotent and omniscient."
Could you please give me a couple of examples of what he’s talking about? If the examples are good, then I’d definitely check it out. If even the examples aren’t solid, then reading it would be a waste of my time.
I don’t think you’d like it if I recommended a book that was just filled with flawed and/or circular reasoning.
BTW, I don’t think the government is all-powerful, just that it would be more powerful than any resistence that simply used guns and tactical maneuvering.