I put this here because it’d wind up here anyway.
Does anyone out there that carries/owns guns and claims the 2nd Amendment gives them that right, really think they’ll (be able to) stand up the Government, should it come to that?
Im an Aussie, and hearing that sort of justification is kind of silly.
I know that’s what the constitution says, but if you wanna live your life by the word 1700’s that’s fine.
(Same goes for bible morons WRT living by the word of 0 BC)
Yes. Why is it silly?
Had every Jew in Germany had a gun, how many storm-troopers would have died before they found easier people to pick on?
Maybe an armed civilian population would still be overwhelmed by governmental forces, but the possiblity of resistance may give gov’t forces reason to ponder whether or not the effort would be worth it.
“We may not defeat Big Brother, but we can still give him plenty to think about.”
Well, yes. People with guns can’t stand up to a modern army, of course, but they don’t have to. They just need to be able to shoot politicians, police officers, firefighters, and others until martial law is declared, then keep doing elsewhere until the army is too widespread and the civilian populace can no longer support it.
The result would be a particular vicious form of anarchy, of course, but sometimes (very rarely) a failed state is better than the alternative.
Not nearly enough of them to make a difference (er, dead storm-troopers that is).
Do you really not see the absurdity? I think that’s the gist of the OP … do actually think an armed citizenry would stand a chance against either a civilian police force, a national guard unit, or the military?
Not many, since the Jews would likely be killed first by their neighbors who would ALSO have guns in that scenario, and greatly outnumber them. One of the problems with the idea that personal weapons are a credible threat to a tyrannical government, is the assumption that all or even most of the armed private citizens will be fighting against tyranny, and not for tyranny.
Exactly. And given that the tyrannical government won’t simply announce its tyrannical intentions upfront for any righteous citizen to fight it, and that it needs a substantial support in the populace to institute itself in the first place, all the addition of guns does in that scenario is making the ensuing civil war even more bloody and violent.
As the late, great James Morrison said, *“They’ve got the guns, while we’ve got the numbers. Gonna win yeah, we’re taking over. Come on!”
*
hic. < falls off chair >
I gotta say, when you channel Jim Morrison, you do a thorough job of it.
Good point. I maintain that the fact that no-one has rebelled against Homeland Security, Guantanamo, unimpeachable Attorney Generals, etc. etc. by now, means that no-one ever would.
But you and Der aren’t thinking about how dirty people are willing to get their hands. Do you really think your typical Werner 6-Litre cerca 1939 would be willing to storm his Jewish neighbor’s house even if he had a gun and a head full of propaganda? I doubt it. I think he would stand by and let the government do it though.
As I said in another thread, it’s the principle of the thing. Unorganized handgun owners would be the feeblest of threats to an occupying army; but do we really want to throw in the towel altogether and declare that only government enforcers have the privilege of posessing weapons? As it is, sometimes I feel like the government’s attitude towards the average citizen today is “shut up and do what you’re told, you goddamn peasant”.
I think he’d do it, and with enthusiasm. Lynching and pogroms are hardly a rare occurrence in history. Historically, plenty of Jews HAVE been killed by their fellow citizens, and not by the government.
The only difference between “throwing in the towel” and buying a gun to protect yourself from the government is the delusion that the gun makes a difference. If anything, it puts you in greater danger, since you will be focusing on the gun and gun rights, instead of rights that actually matter, and trying to keep the government from becoming a tyranny in the first place.
I do think that one of the purposes of the whole “gun rights” movement is to make it easier to take away people’s rights, which is why the Right loves it so much. Even on this board, I recall all the single issue gun voters who talked about how guns were their overriding concern. They are the perfect victims for a wannabe tyrant.
(just off the top of our collective heads, has a well-armed country ever been occupied?)
Iraq. Saddam didn’t mind his people being armed; he knew it didn’t matter.
And yes, they are fighting us - with bombs and rockets, not guns.
I look at it this way. We have a right to own guns. The government (meaning the military, mostly) has LOTS of them. Though the collective armed civilian population would indeed be overmatched in direct combat with our own military, I find it incredibly hard to believe that our military, composed of our own sons and daughters, would turn on the civilian population in a violent manner under almost any cirumstance.
What kind of morale would the servicemembers have, killing their own countrymen at the behest of some crazy version of our government ordering them to attack us? Most I would assume would join us against the government, or lay down their arms. It’s an unlawful order.
Sure they would; they’d think they were killing traitors, or terrorist sympathizers, or whatever the bogeyman of the day is. And they’d probably be fighting alongside much of the civilian population.
Since such a government would rewrite the law, it wouldn’t be. And it’s not like we have a very civilized army.
The only problem I have with the concept is that someone would consider it “throwing in the towel.” Remember, the OP is referring to having weapons for the purpose of protection from the government, not hunting or self defense from the citizenry. Whatever you feel the gov’s attitude is towards people, we can still vote. That’s your bulwark against tyranny, not your (relative) pea-shooters.
ETA: FoieGrasIsEvil, your post makes sense whether or not guns are in the hands of the populace.
(man gun threads move fast!)
I think of it this way: There are about 50 million able bodied citizens in America that would be able to fight in a rebellion against the Government as opposed to what…3 million in the military stationed in the US? Give those 50 million people weapons and the military is definitely outmatched in numbers.
Not to mention there ARE militia groups already living in the woods composed of crazy Vietnam veterans, rebellious teens easily brainwashed and all kinds of other militant and extremist groups that would also be included in the fighting. Let’s not forget the amount of military service members who would oppose their orders given to them by their leaders and start smuggling military weapons to the civilians to use to fight against the tyrannical government.
Sure I’m dreaming, because I know all these statistics I mentioned above would never pan out this way, but my whole point is to not underestimate our countrymen’s love of this country. Because if it came to it, me, my brother and at least my dad would come to arms to fight against tyranny if we had to and I know many others would as well.
I’m a little obtuse so you are going to have to go into more detail for this for me. How does ensuring that our constituional to right to keep and bear arms is not infringed upon lead to the erosion of other rights?
Also do you really believe that conservatives supporting gun rights as a whole are doing it in order to strip people of other rights?