No one is suggesting that the current government of England or the US could, should or would be replaced by a ruling class of gun owners. I don’t know where you got that impression.
The hypothetical standard narrative is that, if the government were to become un-democratic, a population with widespread gun ownership could probably succeed in rebelling and re-establishing a democracy.
Let’s please not hijack this thread with an argument about how successful such a rebellion might be. I am simply pointing out that that is the usual form this argument takes, as opposed to what you have imagined.
Why are people so enamoured with:
getting pissed
homosexual marriage
using illegal drugs
making more money than they could ever need
cars
stamps
music
etc
etc?
You don’t have to understand it- it just is.
There are no atheists in a foxhole!
Why is concern about other people’s beliefs an obsession for so many people? It’s not like they’ll kill you if you don’t go to church.
I know perfectly well how the argument is normally stated- I’ve seen it here before- I just think it’s crazy. For a start, I see no reason to believe any rebellion would be on the same side that I am- if everyone is armed, anyone can try and raise an army, and for whatever reason they like, what on earth makes you think they’d have the same ideals as me? Or you?
I’ll not wish a civil war on my country. I can’t imagine how the current system could fail so badly that that would be the preferable option.
If I can suggest an alternative scenario- the US has gone bankrupt and society has collapsed. Rovings bands of ner do wells are terrorising the country in search of food etc, as they were city dwellers and never taught how to survive, so how else are survivors going to prevent being murdered than by using guns to shoot the bad people?
Perhaps not coincidentally, the 2/3 - 3/4 supermajorities needed to enact major legislation are about the same margin you need to win a civil war. So it would be a case of guns being democracy in its rawest form.
This is the fear that I was writing about, it is the defining characteristic of the NRA membership. They seem obsessed with these ridiculous scenarios while oblivious to the real horror unleashed by their “hobby” on America. Deep down they seem to be hoping for these doomsday scenarios to unfold so that they can have some relevance in this world.
Is that scenario really that implausible to you? And, there’s a difference between “being prepared for anything” versus “hoping for the doomsday scenario so I can be relevant (shoot people)”. A BIG difference.
My husband recently lost a longtime friend over this very argument, and it’s useless for one side to make the other side see their viewpoint if both sides are that entrenched in their views.
It’s not the guns themselves that are the issue. I think everybody can agree with that.
I live in one of the most tightly regulated states when it comes to guns. Sure, I could get one, but I’d have to jump through a few legal hoops first. Unless I lived in the backwoods somewhere, I have no need for one. Owning a gun is not part of my everyday culture. My everyday culture puts guns in lines with people who either 1) hunt by necessity; 2) shoot as a hobby; 3) work in criminal justice, or 4) unlawfully possess them and use them for unlawful activity.
Obviously my view isn’t going to jibe with someone who comes from an everyday culture where guns are revered. And yeah, I will call the police first if god forbid something happens. Their job is to protect the public. It’s not mine.
Yes, the scenario is extremely unlikely. The fact that gun fetishists constantly point to it as a like scenario demonstrates that their fear is so ingrained, they don’t even recognize it for what it is.
A much more likely scenario is the one we actually have now: middle aged white males threatened by their loss of status in society have their fear of cities and minorities manipulated by the gun industry to create a political situation that allows for unfettered arm sales that cause thousands of pointless deaths.
We can’t have a gun thread without someone proposing some kind of mad max scenario to explain why they need their guns and I’m sure in these fantasies these middle aged men are all the heros in their stories. I picture a pot bellied man in Dockers and a golf shirt ruling over his subdivision from a throne made from a riding mower.
Of course it’s unlikely. But so is me getting my house robbed. But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible or implausible. Maybe I read too much science fiction but I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to envision a scenario where a convergence of events like a large natural disaster coupled with an economic collapse and possibly a virulent disease push our ability to govern our nation to it’s breaking point.
Riots have happened. Looting happens. Hurricanes happen. Earthquakes happen. There are plenty of evil opportunists among us.
What you don’t seem to grasp is that by preparing for the unlikely scenario, you are creating the actual scenario that we have which is a country awash in guns and violence. You seem to think that you preparing for a fantasy is harmless, like dressing up for cosplay, but your fear is driving real policy decisions that are having real negative impact on our society now, not in some imagined future.
I post on another board that has a small but extremely vocal contingent of people who really shouldn’t be owning guns, because of their paranoia. Some of them even homeschool their kids just because they don’t want outsiders finding out about their enormous unlicensed arsenals.
And folks, nobody’s going to break your door down without a warrant and search your house for guns. It’s really shocking to me who some of the people are who believe that.
And one other thing. If the Sandy Hook kids had names like “ShaQueenzia” or “LuQuavious”, it probably wouldn’t have made the local news and would now be discussed only on racist blogs. :dubious:
Legislation with this exact requirement was proposed in several states, by actual, elected legislators. Sure, it will probably never pass, but that’s not the point. Yeah, some gun owners are a bit extreme, but some gun control advocates are as well, and when some of these people are actually holding elected office, concern that one day they’ll manage to achieve their goals is not unwarranted.
I grasp that just fine. What I am saying is that as someone that thinks of guns in terms of a variety of ways that “being prepared for any eventuality” is but one facet of them. I’m not paranoid about it nor do I think I am somehow perpetuating this culture or scenario you envision. I don’t have a stockpile of ammo, food, own an emergency shelter, etc.
I think the leadership of the NRA is morally bankrupt, I support the enforcement of the gun laws we already have and believe they should be applied to any loopholes (gun shows, etc) as such loopholes exist.
The point is that I think I represent the average, sane gun owner. I own ONE gun. Sure, I’d like to get a couple more but can’t really justify the purchases financially, and I would never be one of those guys that has a bazillion guns…just because. In other words, I think this whole “obsession” angle is overblown and is the result of a vocal, politically powerful minority.
20 years ago would 17 trillion in debt and counting while printing money with nothing to back it and bankers carrying out criminal acts with no action by the DOJ have been seen as likely? Of course not.
20 years from now, we have no idea what will happen. Anarchy is as likely as sane banking regulations.
We don’t have a pious reverence to our Constitution. We have a pious reverence to laws and rights, and we don’t think that they should just be taken away on a whim. The means for amending the Constitution exists, and in fact it has been amended 27 times.
You know what I have a reverence for? Process. The process of amending the Constitution precludes some yahoo doing an end-run around it because he can’t get the votes. If people don’t like something the amendment process is available to all. The problem is that it requires more effort than most are willing to expend. Why try to repeal the Second Amendment when we can essentially kill it with a thousand little regulations? That’s the game, and that’s what I object to. The protections for the process were put in place for a reason, and it flies in the face of our own laws when we ignore that. If we can’t follow our own laws, if we’re no longer subject to them, then we may as well just give up, because anybody can pass anything immediately based on the cause du jour with nothing to stop them.
Would you object to your government doing whatever it wanted to do? It’s supposed to be composed of citizens, is it not? Surely you have a problem with your own citizens doing whatever they want in their interests while simultaneously ignoring yours.
That’s the limit of my reverence. Do I revere the Second Amendment? Not any more than I revere the 1st, 4th, etc. The difference between me and a good number of my fellow citizens is that I don’t disdain it, and I think that if they want what they say they want they have a process to follow. Anything else is nonsense. So, with that in mind, I invite all who think that the Second Amendment is outdated, irrelevant, unnecessary, etc., to amend the Constitution and have it repealed.
If Hamilton and the Federalists had had their way, we would have had a system of pure republicanism- where the legislature could enact anything- limited only by the power of the people to vote the legislators out of office the following election, with only some nebulous devotion to freedom as a safeguard. :rolleyes:
