Heck…I’m guessing you aren’t aware that most gun control in this country was meant to control those darkies from getting guns too.
But here is one link about the UK.
[
Jeez, you can’t even represent your own cites accurately. It says right there in your own cite that those concerns about the rabble lead to weapon registration in 1920. It wasn’t until 70 years later that Britain banned most firearms.
Wait…was this not a discussion about them in relation to politics and forms of government, restricting access to individuals based on political idolatry was new in 1920 or can you provide a cite where a known communist would not be restricted from ownership after that era.
Note you just invalided your earlier cite, where you claimed the UK as an example of a country with low gun ownership, if it was common as you assert until 20 years ago there is not enough time to see if the UK will devolve into a tyrannical government.
So UK and Japan are worthless as comparisons. Do you have others.
I disagree with your reasoning, but I’ll offer other countries that you may wish to consider.
South Korea, Ghana, Indonesia, Lithuania, Romania, Poland, Trinidad and Tobago, the Netherlands, India, Taiwan, Botswana, Dominican Republic, Cape Verde, and Hungary. Those countries all have restrictive gun laws, and Freedom House rates them as being “Free” countries. There are more I could list, but you get the point.
By the way, for the life of me, I can’t understand what Japan’s policy on its armed forces has to do with public access to firearms.
ETA: And I have no idea what your first sentence means.
You do realize South Korea suffered a Coup d’état in 1979 by Chun Doo-hwan who held the country under despotic control until 1987?
Ghana had it’s SECOND successful transfer of power in 2009 and suffered many coups in my short life time.
The fact you are just spewing out random country names without a modicum of research as evidence proves once again your argument is weak.
You are obviously not a serious poster and are wasting my time, have a good day sir.
See “Seven Days in May”.
Welll… sorta an oversimplification: Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia . Basically the UK started slowly peeling back gun rights over a long period. Exactly the “pecked to death by ducks” scenerio that makes US gun owners paranoid about any gun restrictions.
I think I have sucessfully figured out how you wish to dictate the terms of this debate:
Countries that are free and have significant gun ownership: Let’s discuss these countries.
Countries that are not free and have significant gun ownership: Not valid for discussion.
Countries that are free and do not have significant gun ownership: Straw man!
Countries that are not free and do not have significant gun ownership: Only valid for discussion if those countries are Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and Hitler’s Germany. Otherwise, not a serious topic.
It wasn’t common 20 years ago either. Long arms other than sporting weapons have been banned more or less forever. The 1990s amendments only applied to handguns.
It seems rather short-sighted to say that guns prevent tyranny and then ignore the government that guns installed. Yes, Charles I was removed but Oliver Cromwell wasn’t any better (just ask the Irish). Louis XVI was removed by guns (the Bastille!) but the Reign of Terror was worse. It’s sort of like claiming that cutting off your head cures brain cancer.
Wrong, you can continuously ignore my stated stance, that entire list is bunk
You have failed to provide any cites valid for your side.
An armed populous can be a useful tool in a broader set of checks and balances to ensure that civilian maintain control of the military.
Listing a bunch of countries who have either only existed have been military juntas in the past quarter century does nothing to invalidate the concept of a armed population as being a deterrent to military takeover by a standing army.
Your claim however, that the former Soviet republics were good examples is preposterous despite their short existence. They were in fact systemically disarmed by the USSR and subjugated for decades.
But to go back to the OP
One of the first acts those tyrants did was to disarm the opposition, they also did not have civilian control of the military.
There is also a risk that the majority may use the same power to subjugate a minority and that it will prolong tyrannous states, this is where we hope the other checks and balances work.
As for it’s effectiveness we have had over 225 years of peaceful power transfer, I am only aware of one semi coup attempt called the “Business Plot” which was discussed after FDR pulled the country off the gold standard but was thwarted.
We do know that after England’'s Glorious Revolution, the last successful invasion of England, and the drafting of the Bill of Rights 1689 the country has been pretty stable. (admittedly no Catholics were allowed)
Maybe this is due to commanders reading Sun Tzu or Carl von Clausewitz and conceding the power to the state. Maybe it is due to an amazingly long run of economic success.
But I haven’t seen any evidence to show that it is not an effective tool to help deter a takeover by a military junta which is the main reason it was called out as a core right.
I don’t know what video games you’ve been playing but I play left 4 dead and full auto is a very necessary tool.
He was the one trying to argue it both ways. I was concerned about the political removal of the right for this discussion.
Video games are reality? 
an M4A1 is full select fire, an M4 is not it has three round burst.
During the Franklin Island wars British commanders had issues with British soldiers picking up full auto FAL’s from Argentinian soldiers.
Assault rifles and battle rifles are not very practical under full auto fire for a vast number of reasons but the biggest being the accuracy is horrid.
Have you ever shot a M4A1 on full auto? you would be amazed at how quick you dump an entire mag and how few bullets are on target.
In most of that thread they tend to agree, that it is useful for covering fire, did you post this as a disagreement or in agreement with my statement?
Really I was neither agreeing or disagreeing; I posted the link to the earlier debate for informative purposes.
If I’m following you correctly, your argument is that since full-auto fire is of limited use, the actual firepower gap between military and civilian firearms isn’t as great as some claim, and therefore civilian firearms are an effective counter to military arms. My position is that while any guns are better than none, there is a reason why most militaries arm their infantry with select-fire assault rifles. I for one would hate like hell to have to take on professionally trained and armed troops with only handguns or shotguns, except maybe in a close-quarters ambush. Hunting rifles and semi-automatic assault rifles would admittedly be a lot closer match.
If one of the first acts of a tyrant is to disarm the opposition, isn’t that evidence that broad based gun ownership is not an effective tool against tyranny?
IMHO it would require guerrilla tactics, attacking an army head on would be suicide.
Personally I think we will neither need nor to I with for the need to do so anytime in our future.
Nothing good would come of it, my goal is to keep having debates with those with whom I disagree with until we all are die of old age.
But I do think an armed populous could hold on until a junta lost favor similar to how the USSR lost in Afghanistan.
Yes but at that point there’s no longer civilian control of the military, so it doesn’t count.
a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…this was tested in the war of 1812 when the (presumably) well armed citizenry of D.C. fled in a panic allowing the brits to march into the capital and burn it. you gotta admire the fight a bunch of poorly armed jihadis have shown these past ten years.