I can’t say I know the specifics of Iraq before our invasion but it does seem the populace being armed lessened our desire to occupy and rule as tyrants. However, if you read the article you will see the argument is not an absolute one. It argument just says that and armed populace increases the cost of genocide making it less desirable.
Yugoslavia?
We’re not in the 19th Century any more. America has changed, and largely to the better.
But let me phrase it differently: if the U.S. military were asked to do these things to American Citizens, would they follow the order?
Yeah, the Native Americans are largely out of our way now. I do think America has changed and improved, but I don’t think human nature has changed, and I don’t think we can count on change being permanent. Do you?
Does WACO count? Not really military but US forces.
I think that partisan bickering aside, the America people’s faith in democracy and civil society has only increased. When you have that, you don’t need guns.
No - no it doesn’t. Police is not the same as military.
So were maybe as safe as Rome was? Maybe that’s much of the difference is between the pro gun side and the anti side. A long view of history vs. a short view. Did you read the article?
But it proves US forces, today, will, when given the order, kill fellow citizens.
Waco is your example of.positive and desirable gun ownership? I thought gun needers were all about “enforce existing gun laws”!
Shooting people when they attempt to serve a warrant seems like a crazy bad example of gun ownership. Are you sure you want to build your argument to the American people in favor of liberal gun access on the Branch Davidians?
I think I prefer the “I stand on the wall” guys to the “black helicopters are gonna get us” guys.
Seems it’s hard to be persuasive.
I just got back from a european vacation and toured many a museum, castle and fortress. Having done so I got the impression that from human nature it’s not a “could happen” but rather it does happen and happen quite frequently if we stand back and look at history and the world over from afar. I don’t know how to put together the probabilities however. It seems it would be a complex math problem.
I think he did so with the maxim “the strong will do what they can and the weak will suffer as they must.”
No, it’s just an example of Federal forces killing US civilians under order. It was the first thing that popped into mind. Did you read the part in the article about american exceptionalism?
No; it was IEDs and RPGs that caused us trouble, not guns. And the fact that we are as a nation bullies and cowards; the fact is the causalities have been grotesquely in America’s favor, and any serious imperial power would have laughed at them. But we only want fights that are utterly one way; we thought we could roll in and take over with essentially zero casualties, and they would throw flowers at us while we looted them and reshaped their society into a colony of ours.
U.S. police. Not U.S. military.
Let me show you how things will work:
-
The government becomes too tyrannical.
-
The population takes to the street in massive, albeit unarmed, protest.
-
The government sends its law enforcement agencies against the protesters.
-
The law enforcement agencies lack the numbers to suppress a determined population, and the protests continue.
-
The government orders the military to violently suppress the protesters.
-
The military refuses.
-
The government falls.
-
Democracy is restored.
That, to me, is the optimal outcome. Guns will only make the military more likely to use force - they’ll start thinking of civilians as enemies rather than as the people they’re supposed to protect. To win this kind of war, you first have to win hearts and minds - the hearts and minds of the military and of the government. After all, they’re U.S. citizens too.
Would that have worked for the Jews and Armenians?
No. But neither would guns.
The article specifically says that it worked for a subgroup of Armenians who were armed, the author thought the Jews were too much a minority for it too have helped much. However, were I a Jew in that situation, I think I would much prefer to be armed.
Why? So you could serve as propaganda fodder for how dangerous Jews are? In a situation like that, the only viable options are to run or hide, preferably the former. Anything else ends with your death.
There are deeper forces at play. The claim need not be that the actual possession of guns is what prevents a holocaust. However, the totalitarian impulses behind gun control (the idea that only certain segments of society such as the police, the military, and Democratic politicians get to carry guns while everyone else does not; the idea that we can ignore the rule of law if people yell “WON’T SOMEBODY PLEEEEEEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN” loud enough; the idea of basing laws on outright lies; the idea that a visible minority class is to be blamed collectively for all the ills of society) signify the sort of bad path that may lead to worse government actions in the future, as does the tolerance and embrace of them by large swaths of the population.
Today it’s “one person with a gun killed some people so all gun owners are threats to the harmony of our society and must suffer.” Ten years ago it was the same, but for Muslims. Maybe next time it will be gays or redheads or people who drive foreign cars. In every case it’s about people who enjoy persecuting looking for a target and it’s a bad sign.
Fighting’s not an option? IMO some deaths are better than others.
Most members of the military already view non-members as, at best, a lesser class of citizen who exists only to provide material support for the military. The causes for this have nothing whatsoever to do with domestic gun laws and a lot to do with false elevation of the military itself post-9/11 combined with a lot of long-running bullshit about what they do and a huge de-emphasis on the military’s subservience to civilian control and the rule of law in the post-draft era. This is a problem that should be addressed regardless of what does or doesn’t happen regarding private gun ownership.
“Don’t fight back, it will make them angrier at us!” is the logic of the bullying victim. It has no place in the adult world.
That’s nonsense. Gun control is about the rather obvious idea that if guns are dangerous, they should be gotten rid of. The pro-gun side is much more inclined towards totalitarianism, many of them acting like proto-death squads with their speeches about Second Amendment solutions. If there’s a dictatorship in this country it won’t be about the Evil Democrats imposing gun control, it’ll be some American version of the Brownshirts kicking in the doors of suspected liberals, atheists, homosexuals and feminists and gunning down them and their families for Guns, God and FREEDOM!!