# 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:** 16
**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 5, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/301 "2013-02-05T18:12:57Z")
> [@desertmonk](#): > > I think it is just as likely that quite a few armed civilians would support their nation’s army against any homegrown “terrorist” (as they would be styled by the government). If the DOL ever comes to pass it will not be as one mass uprising fighting for liberty. People frequently rally around the flag of their country, even if it is repressing them. There were loyalists during the American revolution as well ---
**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 5, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/302 "2013-02-05T18:33:18Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > The Constitutional process in the US is protected by the well regulated militias - Federal military and State National Guard. militia doesn’t mean what you think it means. > [@](#): > > In civilized societies force is the monopoly of Government (also per BrianGlutton above). This is true for tyrannies as well. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/303 "2013-02-06T02:06:39Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > Really? How about if they were Japanese-Americans during WWII? There is a big difference between death camps, concentration camps, and internment camps. Until the 1940’s, interning foreign nationals during wars was normal and expected, even if a less than brilliant use of public funds. Britain interned Italian citizens. It’s a terrrible scandal that we did this to US citizens of Japanese decent, but these were not camps where people were worked to death. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > There were loyalists during the American revolution as well As well there should have been. I agree with Jefferson that “Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” And I can’t think of any revolution sparked by lighter or more transient causes than ours. There were some good people among the revolutionaries. But after Britain attempted to make peace with the natives on the basis of the Proclamation Line of 1763, and then freed its internal slaves in 1772, I can’t imagine opposing my king when faced with a largely slaveholder-led rebellion. I’m a loyal US citizen. But if things had gone the way they should have, I’d be just as loyal to the British Commonwealth of Nations. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2013, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/304 "2013-02-06T02:13:49Z")
P.S. The strategy of my last post, immediately above, seems to be: First, totally piss off liberals by attacking one of their most cherished beliefs. Then, do the same to conservatives. I’m only self-destructive in virtual life, not real life. I hope. ---
**Author:** ![desertmonk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@desertmonk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/desertmonk)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2013, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/305 "2013-02-06T19:26:21Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > There is a big difference between death camps, concentration camps, and internment camps. What happened to the Japanese-Americans in WW2 should have been enough to provoke a “Defense of Liberty”; how Africans were treated is the same. If that wasn’t enough I can’t imagine what the people making the DOL claim would consider sufficient. Also, the Japanese and the Jews were both simply being relocated according to their governments. Now I’m not saying the U.S. and German governments were both evil, I’m only saying that history shows that Americans will tolerate or even applaud the repression of a group as long as it isn’t themselves. I’m also asking what exactly would it take to Americans to rise up if they didn’t historically fight for **other Americans** when those people were being repressed. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/306 "2013-02-09T02:59:28Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > To put it simply: guns are great when it comes to killing. Not so great when it comes to keeping from being killed. Come at me bro…We’ll test that theory. To put it simply: guns are great at killing people to keep from being killed. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/307 "2013-02-09T04:51:04Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > And I think that due process ought to have some sensible regulations laid on top of it so maybe, just maybe, we can do something about the outrageous amounts of gun-deaths we experience in this country. Could you do a side by side comparison of these OUTRAGEOUS amounts of gun-deaths vs the teensy weensy number of automobile deaths? I’m just curious if you have even an inkling of an idea of the numbers you’re talking about… And so, after you find out that many, many more people are killed each year by automobiles than by guns, what meaningful automobile bans would you propose? I mean if your objective is to save lives, then let’s start with bans that would save the most lives right? ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/308 "2013-02-09T06:13:35Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > The DOL argument does seem to be basic to much of the heated debate over weapons. Those who make the DOL argument are proposing armed insurrection to overthrow the government of the US. That is illegal. > > Weapons that support the DOL should be illegal since a basic requirement of an orderly society is that force is the monopoly of the government. > > I agree with Absolute as far as requiring liability insurance for weapon ownership. However, weapons should be permitted for a specific purpose and licensed annually for that purpose only. Also there needs to be strict requirements for weapon storage and access limited only to the owner. > > Crane They are not proposing insurrection, they are proposing having the means for insurrection. The basic question is who are the masters? Are we the masters of our government? Does our government work for us to do the things which are not practical to do on an individual or state level? OR is our government the masters of us? And if our government isn’t the public servant that it is supposed to be, has it not in fact overthrown us and taken over, no matter how nice living in the cage seems? Seems like I read somewhere: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute 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. How do you propose we alter or abolish it if we are unarmed? If they aren’t playing by the rules to the point that you would abolish the government, do you think sitting down to tea and discussing the matter is a viable option? I’m glad you weren’t around telling the people who wrote that little ditty that it was illegal. People with guns I might add. I will add as it is pertinent to the conversation at hand. Do you suppose they would have written it if they were unarmed? Those who don’t learn the lessons of history, etc, etc… And hence the rest of your argument breaks down from there. When you begin with a false premise, you will seldom arrive at a proper conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![telebob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@telebob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/telebob)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/309 "2013-02-09T09:55:00Z")
Hi everybody, nice place you have here! First post, so please be gentle on MB etiquette. (Feel free to rip me a new one on my ideas though.) Here goes: Reaching a point where we the people were forced to defend our liberty from our own government through force of arms would be a catastrophe of epic proportions. It would mean that we utterly failed in our responsibility as self-governing people to create a just and responsive instrument for carrying out our collective will. Arguing over whether or not small-arms equipped patriots could overcome such an assault is useless and misses the point. Allowing ourselves to go down that road would be an insult to all of the brave souls who struggled and sacrificed so that they could pass this great opportunity/responsibility on to us. I’m speaking not only of the warriors, but all those who through their words and deeds have fought oppression and injustice in our name. Defense of liberty is a poor argument against firearm regulation (or prohibition for that matter) because if we reach that point, the casualties will have long exceeded anything even remotely acceptable. This eventuality simply cannot be allowed to come to pass. I don’t believe we are in imminent danger of being confronted by such a scenario, but there are certainly many things we can do now to safeguard our liberty, including limiting the power of the executive, reducing the influence of money in government, maintaining careful oversight of the judiciary, and resisting the tendency to hand powers to the state in hopes of achieving security. In short, what we need right now is more thoughtfulness, cooperation, and democracy, not more guns. Straight man illustrated this earlier in the thread: > [@straight\_man](#): > > Last thread we had about whether guns protect freedom, I actually ran a linear regression to see whether there was empirical evidence for privately-held guns helping to prevent tyranny. [Details here, but the punchline is, there wasn’t.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15162136&postcount=109) > > The sole objection anyone raised about it (to which I neglected to respond in-thread), was that there could be a conditional variable — but that objection does not actually address the empirical evidence, since conditional variables don’t destroy a relationship. > > There’s no cumulative evidence for the guns-help-freedom argument. I personally think that lack of evidence should be enough to trash it right there, but YMMV. By the same token, it seems to me that the focus on “gun control” is incomplete. I like the idea of educating, testing, and licensing gun owners. I don’t oppose a registry as I think fears of this leading to confiscation are overblown, and a registry would make enforcement of liability more feasible. I fundamentally object to mandatory insurance as a way to handle liability, as this uses statistical justification to amortize the risk of non-stochastic events. (It also requires individuals to purchase a product from a private-sector supplier, which I find distasteful.) Individuals need to be held accountable for their own liability when their firearm is misused. Whatever losses to society that are unrecoverable in this way can be handled through licensing fees and ammunition tax. Beyond this, I fear we are facing decreasing returns for increasing loss of liberty. This is where we’ll need to get creative. We need to find ways to reduce the violence in our society, and to reduce the escalation of violent incidents to the level of assault with a firearm (or hammer, or chainsaw, etc.). This effort will probably take many fronts, from completing the work we’ve done reducing childhood lead exposure to widespread teaching of non-violent conflict resolution to increasing social justice, equity, and security. I believe (no cite, sorry) this approach will yield more dividends than simplistic bans on behavior and materiel, but it won’t be possible if we waste our energy arguing over whether the Syrian rebels would have a greater or lesser chance without small arms, or whether an individual needs 30 rounds per magazine or only 10. Peace. -B ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/310 "2013-02-09T10:57:09Z")
> [@mmmbeer](#): > > Could you do a side by side comparison of these OUTRAGEOUS amounts of gun-deaths vs the teensy weensy number of automobile deaths? Automobile deaths. Interesting. Automobile deaths; I never considered that angle before. Hey, wait a minute. I’m pretty sure some people died in pools last year too. Fuck! I think we’re on to something here. I’ll be back later. I have some research to do around a theory I have about ladders. ---
**Author:** ![Molesworth\_2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9dc877/32.png) [@Molesworth\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Molesworth_2)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/311 "2013-02-09T12:48:33Z")
Guns don’t defend liberty. People defend liberty. If people weren’t defending liberty with guns they’d be defending liberty with knives, home-made explosives, fishing wire, or cabbage patch dolls . Don’t ever blame the guns. Never, ever blame the poor innocent guns. From what I’ve heard in online debates they’re completely useless as a means of killing lots of people, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/312 "2013-02-09T21:48:23Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Automobile deaths. Interesting. Automobile deaths; I never considered that angle before. Hey, wait a minute. I’m pretty sure some people died in pools last year too. Fuck! I think we’re on to something here. > > I’ll be back later. I have some research to do around a theory I have about ladders. I suggested a little research for you that would expose you to actual data about what you’re spouting off about. I see that when a fellow suggests facts to you and you don’t like the facts, you subscribe to the make fun of the fellow theory of debate…nice. I understand that you’re not interested in saving lives. This is a mistake among the anti-disarmament people. We treat your type like you’re interested in rational discussion, when nothing could be further from the truth. Hell, in this thread alone, I’ve seen “well I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I have an opinion anyway” type remarks. So, it isn’t surprising you fail to deal with my question. It leads to a conclusion you will not be lead to. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/313 "2013-02-09T22:06:31Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > The DOL argument is bogus. By definition, government must maintain a monopoly on violence on those it governs. That is to say, to be effective, government must be able to enforce the law. If armed mobs can use violence to resist a tyranical government, what’s to stop them from resisting a lawful one? Half truths do not an argument make. A legitimate government governs with the consent of the governed. It can be effective because it has the will of the people behind it. The law breakers the government is trying to enforce the laws on, will be a minority compared with the populace at large. Armed mobs are also a small portion of the populace at large and have nothing to do with DoL argument. DoL is about the majority of the people overthrowing a tyrannical government. Not an armed mob. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/314 "2013-02-09T22:15:36Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > It’s already happened: see North v South. > > The upshot is there’s no right to overthrow the government. Period. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute 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. Are you sure? Question Mark? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/315 "2013-02-09T22:26:56Z")
> [@mmmbeer](#): > > That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute 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. > Are you sure? Question Mark? Well, we know those guys were all a bunch of smugglers and ne’er-do-wells. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/316 "2013-02-09T22:40:12Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > My understanding from previous threads was that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure that the militia members had the ability to shoot, because the government couldn’t afford the time or expense to train them, so the amendment stated that the government wasn’t going to limit their ability to own guns (because they expected the militia to buy their own guns and learn how to shoot); also, that this has been updated in several court cases to mean that, although we no longer need a civilian militia, the government is still not going to tell people they can’t own guns AT ALL, without stating WHY they aren’t going to do that. > > This does leave open the opportunity for the government to say, “Although we are going to allow you own guns, we don’t want you owning THAT gun, or if you want to own one like THIS, you need to file a bunch of paperwork and pay a fee and submit to fingerprinting and a background check.” > > Unfortunately vague terminology from a couple centuries ago has given people the idea that what the Amendment means is “we want the populace to be armed so that if we, as a government, ever go nuts, they can shoot us all.” That’s not actually what it means. we don’t want you owning THAT gun, or if you want to own one like THIS, you need to file a bunch of paperwork and pay a fee and submit to fingerprinting and a background check I don’t see how “shall not be infringed” is confusing or ambiguous… “we want the populace to be armed so that if we, as a government, ever go nuts, they can shoot us all.” That’s not actually what it means. That is precisely what it means…That ultimately, they wanted the people to be free and to be free, they MUST have the means to be the masters of the government, and not the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/317 "2013-02-09T22:54:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Irrelevant to the thread. At present Europe has (1) freedom and (2) minimal gun ownership (outside Switzerland, which is rather a special, and anachronistic, case). There has never been a time in its recent history when widespread gun ownership was any check or deterrent to tyranny or apparently could have been. **Plenty** of guns floating around Spain, for instance, during the Spanish Civil War, but Franco won anyway. The Republicans had militia, Franco had Army regulars. Just because the oppressed side loses, doesn’t mean they don’t have a better chance with weapons. Do you suggest that people without arms have the same chance to resist violence as those with arms? That is an error. Take a lap, sir. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/318 "2013-02-09T23:01:28Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > That is utter bullshit. [Some](http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/gun-culture-iraq-t28875.html) [articles](http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0310/p01s03-woiq.html) on [Iraqi gun culture](http://iraqslogger.powweb.com/index.php/post/5156/Iraqs_Gun_Culture_Starts_With_Its_Children?PHPSESSID=b155c5eb6418ac653ca2ce675e6fb7f8) > > Some countries have gun cultures. Other do not. There is little or no correlation between “liberty” and “gun ownership”. > > Only Americans think (as illustrated on this thread) that their Glocks are simehow going to stop a government take over. Nobody else thinks that anywhere in the world. CItizens cannot hope to defeat the coersive power of the state in open battle. Period. Or at least sans help from wihout, defections amongst security forces etc. Having done it before does give one a sense of confidence. And we’re here telling you that we don’t want to have to do it with glocks. That is not what we used last time. The citizenry had the same basic weapons that the British regulars had. Now, do you get it? More numbers + same weapons = FREEDOM. Fairly simple equation. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/319 "2013-02-09T23:06:53Z")
> [@Dob](#): > > DOL is bogus mostly in the sense that the US Military is more than capable of taking every single gun in this country if needed, and no gun owner could stop them. So you concede we could export all the illegal aliens if we wanted to. Cool. But, ALL gun owners could stop them. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/320 "2013-02-09T23:07:51Z")
> [@mmmbeer](#): > > Having done it before does give one a sense of confidence. > And we’re here telling you that we don’t want to have to do it with glocks. That is not what we used last time. The citizenry had the same basic weapons that the British regulars had. Now, do you get it? More numbers + same weapons = FREEDOM. Fairly simple equation. Are you advocating free & unlimited civilian access to full-on military hardware? Last I checked, even the heavily pro-gun people posting in this thread and others thought that was a bad idea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002.md?page=17)