# Guns as "protection". (From the Government) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 30, 2008, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047 "2008-11-30T14:12:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/21 "2008-11-30T16:59:13Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. Every Army has it’s share of crazies and unhinged types. I guarantee you, having spent my entire life on military bases, around the military, serving in the First Persian Gulf War myself that the type of volunteer military we have would see through whatever justification the government would come up with to try to attack us. For the most part, anyway. Plus I just don’t envision our government “turning on us” in this incredibly hypothetical situation anyway. The only scenario I can think of where this might not play out like I believe would be some type of mass quarantine/biological/disease scenario where infected people could easily infect others with something deadly, and them needing to be rounded up into quarantines, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/22 "2008-11-30T17:01:12Z")
> [@Nanoda](#): > > 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_. Oh blow it out your fucking ass, moron. Far cry from Gitmo to cooking millions of people in ovens, or the mass kicking-in of doors and breaking up of families at night. Most of us don’t like George Bush and we got rid of him the legal, practical way, with no bloodshed. ---
**Author:** ![Hamadryad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6de8d8/32.png) [@Hamadryad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamadryad)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/23 "2008-11-30T17:02:01Z")
If it really came down to the most extreme of situations, yes, I think that owning a gun (and ammunition, natch) would be part of a system of protection against government run amok. As a note, I’m a bleeding-heart lily-livered liberal, and I really enjoy shooting my gun. ---
**Author:** ![JoeSki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b487fb/32.png) [@JoeSki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeSki)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/24 "2008-11-30T17:03:19Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > 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_? I do. So long as they’re not shooting nukes at us, we know our territory better than they do, we have more numbers, and you can bet many citizens participating in this hypothetical revolution are former soldiers, and former police officers, and former national guard members. This isn’t “Elite Soldiers Vs Dumb Docile Citizen”, this is “Individual Vs Individual”. You can have some amazing training in self defense of all kinds without being a current member of the military, and you can bet there will be people switching sides because they don’t want to shoot their neigbhors, bringing their expertise with them. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/25 "2008-11-30T17:05:10Z")
> [@Wolfian](#): > > 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. I think if the Jews were propagandised as enemies and parasites, then Jews being able to fight back with guns would be propagandised as dangerous and vicious. Examples of Jews fighting back would be given as proof that they were sociopathic monsters with no respect for law and order. Moreover, it is not exactly Werner that needs to be worried about, but Werner and a big group of his friends. With a mix of mob mentality and propaganda of a dangerous foe? Yes, I think it would have happened. I think this idea is a bit of a silly one. Dictators often get to power by having the military in their control, certainly, but likewise they can come to power through gaining the support of the masses. A gun in the hands of a civilian is simply that; there’s no guarantee as to which side the civilian will support, and if someone were to manage to gain the support and trust of the majority of the American armed forces I can see them gaining the support and trust of your average joe, too. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/26 "2008-11-30T17:07:36Z")
> [@Miltonyz](#): > > 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? Because people support leaders who uphold gun rights, despite those same leaders chopping away at other, much more important rights. Support for gun rights is a shield that can be used by anyone who wants to eliminate rights that actually make a difference. > [@Miltonyz](#): > > Also do you really believe that conservatives supporting gun rights as a whole are doing it in order to strip people of other rights? Stripping away and denying the rights of others is one of the major focuses of their existence. > [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Every Army has it’s share of crazies and unhinged types. I guarantee you, having spent my entire life on military bases, around the military, serving in the First Persian Gulf War myself that the type of volunteer military we have would see through whatever justification the government would come up with to try to attack us. For the most part, anyway. I doubt they would “see through it”; more likely than not they would agree with it. Or simply not care. > [@JoeSki](#): > > I do. So long as they’re not shooting nukes at us, we know our territory better than they do, we have more numbers, and you can bet many citizens participating in this hypothetical revolution are former soldiers, and former police officers, and former national guard members. This isn’t “Elite Soldiers Vs Dumb Docile Citizen”, this is “Individual Vs Individual”. No; this is “Organized military forces, supported by local civilian death squads, against poorly armed, outnumbered and disorganized resistance.” As I said earlier; why do you assume that all or even most of the armed citizens will be AGAINST the government ? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/27 "2008-11-30T17:11:40Z")
> [@Punintentional](#): > > 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? Didn’t we just recently do this? It feels like deja vu all over again. But then I am getting to that age where I can’t remember if I already had sex today. Si I think I’ll go have sex again just in case. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/28 "2008-11-30T17:20:38Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I think if the Jews were propagandised as enemies and parasites, then Jews being able to fight back with guns would be propagandised as dangerous and vicious. Examples of Jews fighting back would be given as proof that they were sociopathic monsters with no respect for law and order. Moreover, it is not exactly Werner that needs to be worried about, but Werner and a big group of his friends. With a mix of mob mentality and propaganda of a dangerous foe? Yes, I think it would have happened. > > I think this idea is a bit of a silly one. Dictators often get to power by having the military in their control, certainly, but likewise they can come to power through gaining the support of the masses. A gun in the hands of a civilian is simply that; there’s no guarantee as to which side the civilian will support, and if someone were to manage to gain the support and trust of the majority of the American armed forces I can see them gaining the support and trust of your average joe, too. I agree with you. A few weeks ago, I was talking with my husband who is a gun-owner and very serious about gun rights. I have no objection to gun rights, but weighed against other things, for me, guns are really minor. He said something like (paraphrased): “If you have a gun, the police can’t just come into your house and do what they want.” This is where the disconnect is for me. Gun or no gun, if the police want to come into your house, you can’t stop them from coming into your house. If you shoot or kill a member of the police, you’re then a criminal if you weren’t before. And heck, many of the most vocal advocates of gun rights will be right in there calling you a criminal, since “cop killer” is one of the worst things you can say about someone in certain circles. How the story looks from the outside is at least as important as what the story was from the inside. Under most circumstances, using violence to protect a right simply makes you look (from the outside) like a violent criminal who deserved what happened. Yes, having a gun means that you might take one of the bastards with you, but there are always other bastards. Guns are valuable to protect against others when the law is on your side. They aren’t valuable to protect against the law itself. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/29 "2008-11-30T17:21:47Z")
> [@Punintentional](#): > > Does anyone out there that carries/owns guns and claims the 2nd Amendment gives them that right, … It’s not merely a claim. It’s a constitutional right. And there’s a long history involved. You might want to read up on it sometime. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/30 "2008-11-30T17:22:06Z")
> [@diggleblop](#): > > 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. So where were you the last 8 years? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/31 "2008-11-30T17:24:29Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > It’s not merely a claim. It’s a constitutional right. And there’s a long history involved. A long history of people who argue on both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Isosleepy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/isosleepy/32/479_2.png) [@Isosleepy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isosleepy)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/32 "2008-11-30T17:29:02Z")
In '43, relatively poorly armed Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto held off the Germans for weeks. Most of them died, but they died fighting - wich they apparently preferred to the alternative awaiting them. And some survived, and took part in the Warsaw uprising a year later. I don’t believe I’ll ever have to fight off my government, and it isn’t my reason to own a gun. But a determined armed populace can no doubt make a difference. ---
**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:** [November 30, 2008, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/33 "2008-11-30T17:32:06Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > 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. [soapbox] Read up on how the Roman Republic evolved into the Roman Empire, and how the Militia of citizens was gradually replaced by the Legions. The process takes about 250 years and goes something like this: 1. Citizens overthrow their Rex (king) and create a republic. The republic relies for defense on an armed citizenry, the Militia. 2. The Republic grows in size, and fights defensive/offensive wars using drafted citizens. See Punic Wars. 3. The frontier of the Republic’s interests expand to the point that a draft of short-term service civilians just isn’t adequate anymore. The army starts to depend on career soldiers. 4. Over the next 40-50 years, the economic prospects of the average citizen fade as domestic labor is displaced by foreign competition (in the Roman era, captured slaves; today, outsourcing). Only the people at the top do well financially. Some citizens join the military as their only career option; others become increasingly dependent on public assistance. 5. A disconnect grows between the values of the professional soldiers and the civilian populace. The soldiers spend their time fighting on the frontiers, the populace stays safe at home. The civilians look down upon soldiering as something only the desperate stoop to, and resent the cost of maintaining the armies. The soldiers culture of discipline and responsibility increasingly is at odds with the decadence of the prvileged upper classes and the bread and circus culture of the poor. Increasingly to be a soldier is an entirely different life from being a citizen. The average soldier begins to look to the generals in the upper eschelons of the defense establishment to defend their interests (more pay, pensions, better living conditions, etc.) 6. “War is a continuation of politics by other means”- Clausewitz. Political disputes devolve into civil wars once politicians and influential generals have armies that have effectively ceased to have any loyalty to the regime at large and instead are loyal to the people who pay them. After some years of upheaval, the governing bodies turn to a “man on horseback” to establish control over the armed forces. [del]Palpatine[/del] Caesar now establishes a monopoly on armed force and becomes the de facto dictator of the Republic/Empire. I’ve got news for you: we hit stage 3 in 1975. We’re now well on our way through stage 4, and are even seeing the first hints of stage 5. Our armies today wouldn’t support the overthrow of democracy, no. Give it another 30-50 years. [/soapbox] ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/34 "2008-11-30T17:32:50Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I think this idea is a bit of a silly one. Dictators often get to power by having the military in their control, certainly, but likewise they can come to power through gaining the support of the masses. A gun in the hands of a civilian is simply that; there’s no guarantee as to which side the civilian will support, and if someone were to manage to gain the support and trust of the majority of the American armed forces I can see them gaining the support and trust of your average joe, too. Yes; most proponents of the ‘defence against the government’-argument seem to envision a sudden ‘us vs. them’-scenario, with the gun-owning citizens on one side, and the government on the other. This seems rather naive to me, I can’t really see any realistic situation that would play out that way; does somebody just throw the government’s evil switch? Is there an agreed upon definition about how much is too much throughout the ranks of the gun owners? Else, it seems to me that you’ll just end up with multiple dividing lines throughout the populace, and guns on all sides of them, end the more there are, the more people will end up shot, with no other effect at all. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/35 "2008-11-30T17:35:32Z")
> [@Isosleepy](#): > > In '43, relatively poorly armed Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto held off the Germans for weeks. Most of them died, but they died fighting - wich they apparently preferred to the alternative awaiting them. And some survived, and took part in the Warsaw uprising a year later. And when I look that up on [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Rising), what do I find ? > [@](#): > > Ghetto fighters were armed, if at all, mostly only with pistols and revolvers, which were of limited value in combat. Just a few rifles and automatic firearms were available. The insurgents had little ammunition, and **relied heavily on improvised explosive devices and incendiary bottles.** ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/36 "2008-11-30T17:44:39Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Oh blow it out your fucking ass, moron. Far cry from Gitmo to cooking millions of people in ovens, or the mass kicking-in of doors and breaking up of families at night. Most of us don’t like George Bush and we got rid of him the legal, practical way, with no bloodshed. Word. > [@JoeSki](#): > > I do. So long as they’re not shooting nukes at us, we know our territory better than they do, we have more numbers, and you can bet many citizens participating in this hypothetical revolution are former soldiers, and former police officers, and former national guard members. This isn’t “Elite Soldiers Vs Dumb Docile Citizen”, this is “Individual Vs Individual”. You can have some amazing training in self defense of all kinds without being a current member of the military, and you can bet there will be people switching sides because they don’t want to shoot their neighbors, **bringing their expertise with them.** Not to mention their MGs, grenade launchers, mortars, tanks, and what-not. > [@sailor](#): > > Didn’t we just recently do this? It feels like deja vu all over again. But then I am getting to that age where I can’t remember if I already had sex today. Si I think I’ll go have sex again just in case. Yeah, since Obama’s election, the anti-gunners have been banging the drum pretty fucking loudly, all the while telling gun owners that we’re just paranoid nuts if we think anyone is going to come take out guns away. Who’s playbook are they playing from, I wonder? > [@DanBlather](#): > > So where were you the last 8 years? If you think we were living in a tyranny for the last 8 years, you seriously need a reality adjustment. I know that for partisan reasons the loony left wants G-Dub to be forever equated with Adolf Hitler. I also think they are doing a serious disservice, equal to flying a Nazi flag at a Holocaust Survivor’s Reunion, by doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Isosleepy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/isosleepy/32/479_2.png) [@Isosleepy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isosleepy)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/37 "2008-11-30T17:44:47Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And when I look that up on [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Rising), what do I find ? Yes, had they had more firearms no doubt they’d been more effective. Still, in that same article you looked up it quotes Jurgen Stroop’s report: “When we invaded the Ghetto for the first time, the Jews and the Polish bandits succeeded in repelling the participating units, including tanks and armored cars, by a well-prepared concentration of fire” They would not have been able to do what they did without firearms. Regardless, my comment is to argue that citizens can resist an organized professional army and make a difference. Not neccesarily win, but make a difference. ---
**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:** [November 30, 2008, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/38 "2008-11-30T17:48:52Z")
Missed edit window, point added below: [QUOTE=Lumpy] 1. A disconnect grows between the values of the professional soldiers and the civilian populace. \< **Short-term service is replaced by a long-term or semi-permanent commitment to serve abroad for years, divorcing the soldiers from civilian life** \> The soldiers spend their time fighting on the frontiers, the populace stays safe at home. The civilians look down upon soldiering as something only the desperate stoop to, and resent the cost of maintaining the armies. The soldiers culture of discipline and responsibility increasingly is at odds with the decadence of the prvileged upper classes and the bread and circus culture of the poor. Increasingly to be a soldier is an entirely different life from being a citizen. The average soldier begins to look to the generals in the upper eschelons of the defense establishment to defend their interests (more pay, pensions, better living conditions, etc.) [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/39 "2008-11-30T18:00:59Z")
We’ve had this same argument dozens of times in recent memory, and it is odd. Can the citizenry of any country stand up in a pitched battle against a modern military force? Almost definitely no. But a war wouldn’t be fought that way. You’d snipe politicians/police officers/military officers. You’d spring ambushes on military patrols and steal their weaponry/ammunition. You’d force the military to spread itself so thin that they’d be required to perform house-to-house searches if they wanted to have even a remote chance of disarming a hostile populace. People would plant remotely detonated IED’s break into the houses of prominent local party leaders and murder them and their families. Etc, etc, etc. And sure, the military could just carpet bomb or use neutron bombs to pacify an area, but then that leaves the government with a great big bombed out and/or uninhabited piece of land that they’d then need to populate. And while it is possible that any tyrannical government would rubble a city or three in order to make a point (see Hama, Syria), in a country like the US that would almost certainly galvanize support for any partisans fighting against the government and increase the defection/subversion rate in the military and police forces. Whether you’re pro or anti “gun control”, common sense tells you that tyrannically governing when you have an armed guerrilla insurrection is a lot harder than when you’re faced with a force of guerrillas armed with harsh language and bad attitudes. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047/40 "2008-11-30T18:08:12Z")
You have to have a huge army to occupy this country. Ours is not big enough. We cant do Iraq with 28 million people. If you can get by with occupying Washington it would be doable. But the soldiers would have to be convinced to shoot their own people. We have enough soldiers with mental problems from shooting what we label enemies. Let them shoot countrymen and family to really screw themselves up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-as-protection-from-the-government/475047.md?page=3)