# Guns and the defense of liberty. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2013, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002 "2013-01-12T22:47:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/261 "2013-02-02T21:09:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > They ain’t makin’ it up about about those “false flag operation” theories, either. See [this Pit thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=679081) If you believe/proclaim that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged, then you are a gun nut, and probably several other kinds of nut. No one in this thread has said anything resembling that. Rather than responding to something someone in this thread has said, you’ve posted a description of a theoretical “gun nut”. Are you now going to refute the arguments of the theoretical gun nut? I guess that will be a lot easier for you than dealing with real people. Maybe I can get in on this game too. I will post a caricature of a theoretical “liberal gun-grabber”, and then rip the positions of this imaginary person to shreds. That will save me from having to address any arguments I can’t refute. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/262 "2013-02-02T21:12:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, because they are fighting a civil war. What is your point? How is the revolution in Syria materially different from a theoretical revolution in the US? Your claim that “Your personal firearms have no political value whatsoever. Whether you have them or not will never so long as you live make any difference to the state of liberty, or equality, or democracy in this country.” is simply laughable, as shown by both historical and current events. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/263 "2013-02-03T03:12:58Z")
Absolute, “Your personal firearms have no political value whatsoever. Whether you have them or not will never so long as you live make any difference to the state of liberty, or equality, or democracy in this country.” That is a correct statement. What historical or current events would lead you to believe to the contrary - Waco, Ruby Hill, the Republic of Texas? Insurrection in the US is illegal. That’s why the South lost and the Communist party was outlawed. Crane ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/264 "2013-02-03T03:42:57Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Absolute, > > “Your personal firearms have no political value whatsoever. Whether you have them or not will never so long as you live make any difference to the state of liberty, or equality, or democracy in this country.” > > That is a correct statement. What historical or current events would lead you to believe to the contrary - Waco, Ruby Hill, the Republic of Texas? > > Insurrection in the US is illegal. That’s why the South lost and the Communist party was outlawed. > > Crane The Communist party is not outlawed. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/265 "2013-02-03T03:56:34Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Absolute, > > “Your personal firearms have no political value whatsoever. Whether you have them or not will never so long as you live make any difference to the state of liberty, or equality, or democracy in this country.” > > That is a correct statement. What historical or current events would lead you to believe to the contrary - Waco, Ruby Hill, the Republic of Texas? What do a few crazy crackpots have to do with anything? No one is suggesting that there is any need for an armed uprising _today_. In some distant future, who knows? The US is not immune to corruption and decay, nor to the subversion of the democratic process to serve the interests of a few - something that, I’m sure, many liberals would be more than happy to explain to you. The argument is not that private ownership of guns would allow a few nutjobs in Texas to resist their perceived “tyranny”. It’s that it would allow 300,000,000 citizens to stand a chance of resisting genuine tyranny, if it came to that. There are countless examples of uprisings by ordinary citizens succeeding, including present-day events in the Middle East where the governments had superior firepower. If the citizens are armed, their chances are that much greater. Do you think the US is somehow special and immune to all the factors that have led to dictatorships, revolutions, etc. in the past? Some people view a citizenry with privately-owned small arms as a major defense against the development of a tyrannical government. A ban or severe restrictions on privately-owned small arms would make it substantially easier for a tyrannical government to exist in the future. So, people oppose a ban not because they think Obama is actually trying to create a tyrannical government, but because a ban - however well-intentioned it is today - removes the people’s ability to defend themselves, collectively, in the future. EDIT: And yes, you can find people with more extreme opinions than this, esp. regarding Obama. I don’t give a shit. That proves nothing. Crazy people are crazy. We know this already. > [@](#): > > Insurrection in the US is illegal. That’s why the South lost and the Communist party was outlawed. Oh, it’s illegal? Oh damn, what was I thinking? I’m sure that will stop a rebellion. “Excuse me rebels, are you aware that what you’re doing is illegal?” And I’m sure you could write a really… “interesting” history book based on the thesis “The South lost because secession was illegal.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/266 "2013-02-03T04:38:32Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > The Communist party is not outlawed. Well, it is and it isn’t. See the [Smith Act Trials.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_communist_party_leaders) The [Smith Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act) is still on the books but no longer enforced. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/267 "2013-02-03T04:40:47Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > How is the revolution in Syria materially different from a theoretical revolution in the US? Materially, the differences are that 1) you will never live to see a civil war in the U.S., which still has a government easier to change by elections than by fighting; and 2) if one ever happens here, it will not be decided by light-armed guerrillas or militias, but by which faction manages to get more regular Army divisions on its side, simply because the U.S. Army is Just That Good, and can fight guerrillas much more easily in the U.S. than in Vietnamese jungles or Afghan mountain-passes. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/268 "2013-02-03T05:15:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Materially, the differences are that 1) you will never live to see a civil war in the U.S., which still has a government easier to change by elections than by fighting; and 2) if one ever happens here, it will not be decided by light-armed guerrillas or militias, but by which faction manages to get more regular Army divisions on its side, simply because the U.S. Army is Just That Good, and can fight guerrillas much more easily in the U.S. than in Vietnamese jungles or Afghan mountain-passes. I hope you’re correct. But your guess is as good as mine. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/269 "2013-02-03T07:00:26Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, it is and it isn’t. See the [Smith Act Trials.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_communist_party_leaders) The [Smith Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act) is still on the books but no longer enforced. Er… the CPUSA doesn’t advocate “the overthrow of the US”. That’s why they US Communist party runs candidates for the President. I’m a bit confused since you seem to think that the US bans the Communist Party while believing that Hamas and Hezbollah in Israel could be elected to the Knesset. Please explain your reasoning because I don’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/270 "2013-02-03T07:36:57Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Er… the CPUSA doesn’t advocate “the overthrow of the US”. Not any more. Apparently they learned a lesson from the Smith Trials. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I’m a bit confused since you seem to think that the US bans the Communist Party while believing that Hamas and Hezbollah in Israel could be elected to the Knesset. I have advocated for a [one-state solution,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution) but I don’t recall ever suggesting that Hamas or Hezbollah could be elected to the Knesset under Israel’s present constitution/system. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/271 "2013-02-03T13:42:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, it is and it isn’t. See the [Smith Act Trials.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_communist_party_leaders) The [Smith Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act) is still on the books but no longer enforced. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Materially, the differences are that 1) you will never live to see a civil war in the U.S., which still has a government easier to change by elections than by fighting; and 2) if one ever happens here, it will not be decided by light-armed guerrillas or militias, but by which faction manages to get more regular Army divisions on its side, simply because the U.S. Army is Just That Good, and can fight guerrillas much more easily in the U.S. than in Vietnamese jungles or Afghan mountain-passes. It’s funny that you seem to be essentially arguing that might makes right- then opposing gun owners when they object to having their power diminished. If the populace couldn’t resist a tyranny with the Army on its side, then we need either a weaker army or a stronger populace. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/272 "2013-02-03T20:39:27Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > It’s funny that you seem to be essentially arguing that might makes right- then opposing gun owners when they object to having their power diminished. If the populace couldn’t resist a tyranny with the Army on its side, then we need either a weaker army or a stronger populace. Government – any government, of any form – is **supposed** to have a monopoly on armed force. That is not a matter of “might makes right,” it is rather the point of government, that it should have all the might. Without that, you get Somalia. And gun owners are not objecting to “having their power diminished,” they are objecting to having their guns regulated; their small arms are not a form or source of power. Armed citizens wield no more power in our society than the unarmed (nor should they). For which we may thank the government. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/273 "2013-02-04T02:28:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Government – any government, of any form – is **supposed** to have a monopoly on armed force. That is not a matter of “might makes right,” it is rather the point of government, that it should have all the might. Without that, you get Somalia. And gun owners are not objecting to “having their power diminished,” they are objecting to having their guns regulated; their small arms are not a form or source of power. Armed citizens wield no more power in our society than the unarmed (nor should they). For which we may thank the government. Then just what was all this stuff the Founding Fathers kept going on and on about an armed populace? ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2013, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/274 "2013-02-04T02:52:41Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Then just what was all this stuff the Founding Fathers kept going on and on about an armed populace? I think there was mention of a well regulated militia as well… ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2013, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/275 "2013-02-04T04:05:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I have advocated for a [one-state solution,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution) but I don’t recall ever suggesting that Hamas or Hezbollah could be elected to the Knesset under Israel’s present constitution/system. Er… when asked if you’d favor “the American model” of “the Lebanese model” for your “one-state solution” you rather foolishly said you’d advocate “the Israeli model” and keep everything the same except for allowing Palestinians in the occupied territories to vote. You did realize that this would mean that Hamas and Hezbollah would not be allowed to put up candidates for the Knesset didn’t you? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2013, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/276 "2013-02-04T04:43:42Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > … the U.S. Army is Just That Good, and can fight guerrillas much more easily in the U.S. than in Vietnamese jungles or Afghan mountain-passes. I don’t know why you think that. The US populace would be far less patient with air strikes in _their_ neighborhoods and check points every quarter mile than when those things happen in Iraq or Afghanistan. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2013, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/277 "2013-02-04T08:13:44Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Absolute, > > “Your personal firearms have no political value whatsoever. Whether you have them or not will never so long as you live make any difference to the state of liberty, or equality, or democracy in this country.” > > That is a correct statement. What historical or current events would lead you to believe to the contrary - Waco, Ruby Hill, the Republic of Texas? > > Insurrection in the US is illegal. That’s why the South lost and the Communist party was outlawed. > > Crane The revolutionary war was fought largely with personal firearms. Victory in the civil war was not won because the insurrectionists were breaking the law. There are 300 MILLION firearms in the country. There are fewer than 2.5 million members of the military, national guard, and reserves. I’m going to guess that a lot of those folks would stand with the citizenry in defense of liberty if that time ever came. I don’t think that time will ever come but having an armed citizenry probably makes it even less likely. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/278 "2013-02-04T15:13:37Z")
Absolute et al, The Union victory, in the civil war, defined insurrection as illegal in the US. The nature of the US is that legal process prevails over insurrection (per BrianGlutton above). The Constitutional process in the US is protected by the well regulated militias - Federal military and State National Guard. In civilized societies force is the monopoly of Government (also per BrianGlutton above). DOL, as an excuse for the private ownership of weaponry, is a myth. Crane ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/279 "2013-02-04T18:56:04Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Then just what was all this stuff the Founding Fathers kept going on and on about an armed populace? > [@China\_Guy](#): > > I think there was mention of a well regulated militia as well… Then how’s that different from a country just having an army? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/280 "2013-02-04T19:21:37Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Then just what was all this stuff the Founding Fathers kept going on and on about an armed populace? They wanted a small standing army, and a large militia ready to be mobilized in an emergency, to **serve** the state, not fight it. Eventually it developed that that is not a workable model for national defense, and that, at least in an American setting with American political culture, a large standing army is not the threat-to-liberty that it appeared to be in the 18th Century. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002.md?page=15)