You missed a step in this and it comes at the beginning.
“We gun owners are going to resist, when they come to get our guns”
Then it is at this point that I throw in #2
“You’re being paranoid.”
It is paranoid from the beginning to be sitting at home with your guns and talking about people coming to get them. Then there is erislover who says he doesn’t have any guns. Go figure.
Uh I think England thought so too once. An excerpt from our reply…
How short-sighted. I’m sure people back in the '70s were saying that there wouldn’t be anything as ludicrous as banning weapons for the sole reason that they look scary, but look… an Assault Weapons ban, with “Assault Weapon” being defined as “A scary-looking gun”.
Having lived through the 70’s, as an adult, the only thing that I now know is ludicrous is that assault rifles were ever owned legally by anyone back
. I would have voted against my congressman, written letters to get rid of them, etc. It does not take a genius to know that such a rifle should not be allowed out in the general public. It is not for hunting, it is not for target shooting, it does not look pretty hanging on the wall. It is for killing people and it does it very well.
Have you ever had someone come after your a** with an assault rifle? I have and that is scary. I had a couple working for me and one morning they both succeeded in getting me to fire them. Actually, I pointed at the door. Later he called and asked if they were fired or just sent home. I said “fired” and he then told me that he was going to kill me. I thought about it for about 1/2 hour and decided to go swear out a warrant against him.
At the courthouse, the judge said that the fellow was probably just upset and didn’t really mean it, but that I was doing the right thing. I went back to work and actually worked a little past quitting time. I live outside of town about 20 miles, so it was about 6 when I walked in the door. The phone was ringing, it was the judge. He said an officer had been shot and to turn on the local news.
The Chief of Police of a small town adjacent to Tupelo had been called by the Tupelo police saying they were coming to his jurisdiction to arrest the man. The Chief saw them driving down the road, pulled them over in the parking lot of a church.
He was shot 19 times, mostly in the head.
Just because they’re scary looking, huh?
He saw the couple, not the police.
kniz, I am sorry this is personal to you, but such a story doesn’t tell me much. Clearly, a ban on just an assault rifle wouldn’t have prevented this murder. With a standard handgun the head would have taken six or seven bullets… clearly enough to kill him as well.
If such a case is used as the straw that broke the camel’s back for you, then yes—I am sorry to say—just because they are scary.
erislover, I knew when I wrote this that the answer would be that a single shot to the head would have killed the officer. But there are a few more facts. There was a mechanic working on a machine when I left the plant. Two employees came back to the plant and were talking to him. Our salesman came in and so at one time and at the right time there were four people in the plant. If that police officer hadn’t stopped them they would have continued on to the plant without being stopped (they were headed out a back way, which for them was the shortest). One of the employees had something to do with the situation causing the couple to be fired. With a hand gun, the man may have shot that employee and maybe some other people would have gotten hurt. With the assault rifle, he would have mowed them all down before they knew what hit them.
Also, remember the police officer was armed and may have been able to do something even after being hit once, but with an assault weapon he didn’t stand a chance. A witness said that the man stood over the officer and fired. These are probably the shots to the head.
The couple went back to their house, which was soon surrounded by the police. When they surrendered, many more weapons were found in the house. This was a disaster waiting to happen.
Sorry, I just have to disagree with the assertion that the US military would have any problem fighting a bunch of gun-owning civilians.
We’re talking about a professionally trained, fully equiped military with the latest in body armor and night-vision, infrared technology – up against a group of untrained amateurs armed with shotguns and pistols!!!
In Iraq we fought against a trained, experienced and battle-hardened military armed with much more advanced weaponry than any gun enthusiast here possesses. They were routed in a blink of an eye.
And the army would have difficulties because of snipers? How many gun owners have ever actually been trained in the skills it takes to be a sniper? Our military has had to deal with snipers in every war – they have strategies for neutralizing them that we couldn’t even begin to fathom.
This paranoia some have seems to be uniquely American. There are many countries in Europe that have actually *been * invaded and occupied. Yet they don’t feel the same need to arm themselves to teeth to feel safe. Why? Because they are democracies. And revolution occurs on a regular basis at the ballot box!
If the conditions ever arises in the United States where a totalitarian government could seize power, I’d say we’d have a lot more to worry about than the 2nd Ammendment!
The problem here is that the psychological aspect of this has been totally ignored. It is entirely possible that a significant portion of the U.S. military establishment will simply refuse to follow orders they deem wrong; they will not fire on their fellow countrymen, their friends and their families. Yes, the military has an overwhelming technological advantage, but there is more than mere technology to be considered.
Whoops! I need to comment on this, too.
I know any number of guys who routinely shoot accurately at distances of 250-yards, or more. In fact, the gun club to which I belong has had a 250-yard range for more than 20 years. We are also in the initial stages of building a 1000-yard range. Which ironically enough, requires the approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Oh, you mean like China in 1989?
Strawman. Either draw a conclusion that bears on this discussion, or your remarks aren’t worth commenting on.
But if you have the military on your side, then you don’t need a civilian population to start out armed. They can get better arms from military stockpiles once the need for resistance becomes clear.
So the ‘civilian resistance’ fantasy remains a fantasy, depending on what tyrannical scenario you envision, it is either futile or unnecessary.
I really don’t get your gripe erislover. You are quite welcome to become a member of the law enforcement community, you just aren’t allowed to act like one unless you do it professionally and within the bounds of their organization.
As to why you aren’t allowed to be your own private extra-governmental law enforcement agency, I think the harm in that would be obvious.
I also think that your OP is really based on a faulty premise common in the pro-gun world. Pro-gunners are correct in believing that the 2nd ammendment was designed as a defense against tyranny, but thy mistake the nature of the tyrrany. (or intentionally distort it).
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
At the time of the writing of this ammendment, the US had no professional standing army. And the founders believed that the greatest risk of tyranny to their fledgeling state would come from having a standing army in peace time.
So, they designed a system whereby a standing army would be unnecessary. Namely, that all elegible men would know how to use weapons, and could be called upon in time of war or emergency. These men would hopefully be sufficient to repell outside invasion, (especially, given that an invasion couldn’t happen nearly as quickly in those days, giving the countryside time to mobilize).
at the time the US began to have a professional armed forces, the 2nd amendment became irrelevant. Because it is unnecessary to use militia to protect us from outside invaders,
and inadequate to use them to protect against a military coup from our own military.
At this point, I think the primary protection we have from a military coup is the culture
of the military that makes such a thing unthinkable, along with the inter-service rivalry’s
that make it more likely that they would fight each other than collude in a coup.
tj
A wonder that springs to my mind as regards this “civilians vs military” scenario: why on earth would you assume that the civilians would decide en masse to all support the same side? I would have thought that in any civil war there would be comporable numbers (of both military and civilians) on both sides. Then your armed populace simply cancel eachother out.
I just can’t envisage how you’d end up in a situation where all the military were on one side and all the civilians on another.
pan
You fail to consider all alternatives. The military, just like every other association of men, is not monolithic. It comprises many men holding many different views and many different opinions. Is it not possible that a portion of the military will side with the citizens while another portion will side with a despotic regime?
While this is true, it is only part of the truth; your view is too narrow. There is ample evidence that the right to keep and bear arms was also viewed as an adjunct to natural law, that is man holds an inherent right to defend himself from those who would do him harm. There’s an old thread around here (unless it was swallowed in the hack) with a large number of quotes, posted by either Sam Stone, or ExTank, I can’t remember which, from the Founding Fathers which substantiates this.
Yet another part of the truth may be found in Federalist #29. I offer this for your consideration:
This paragraph encourages the establishment of a militia, even calling it a “matter of the utmost importance.” And then goes on to recommend arms be also kept in private hands as a check on that militia. This is quite different from your assertion that “they designed a system whereby a standing army would be unnecessary.”
This is an unproven assertion. How do you know the armed citizens are inadequate to the task?
So. While refuting my contention above in your first post, you agree with it here?
At any rate, and whatever differences reamain between us, I am very happy to see you at least acknowledge the validity of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
In what way am I suggesting that I am some vigilante? I’m not enforcing the law in this hypothetical, I am overturning it. No?
I said I want automatic weapons available for the public on the condition that guns may be registered. I mentioned that my reasons for this are to underscore what I believe is the purpose of the right to bear arms. I have no desire to enforce any laws.
Well, correct my history if I am wrong here, but the FF were still around by the time we did have some official standing armies. Why, then, didn’t they eliminate this?
Hey, don’t get me wrong, I truly hope this is correct. But I’d rather hedge this bet all the same. I trust America’s farmers… but I still cook my food.
kabbes, I don’t expect we’d rise up en masse. I think he civil war is clear enough on that lesson. But then, neither would the military fully unite against its own country based on the decisions of a few. At least, not in today’s culture.
So follow that line of reasoning through eris. If you have some military on one side and some on the other and you have some civilians on one side and some on the other, where is the advantage to either side in the civilian populace being armed? It works as much against them as it does for them.
pan
How 'bout the ability to influence events? How 'bout the ability to protect oneself and one’s family from a “death squad,” like those prevalent under certain regimes in South America? How 'bout the ability to protect onself, one’s family and one’s property during the subsequent and inevitable breakdown in the rule of law?
Inevitable breakdown in the rule of law? Wow, glad I don’t live in America ::rimshot::
Just answer me this honestly: do you really, truly believe that it is vital for the populace to own guns to prevent a country descending into tyrrany? These scenarios you are putting forward - do you really, truly attach credibility to them?
If you do, then I just think we have an axiomatic difference. If you really, truly believe that such possibilities have sufficient materiality then I can perfectly understand why you would want to have assault weapons and so forth. But in turn you must realise that I think such scenarios are laughable fantasy and as such using them as an argument in favour of the right to own guns fails prima facie.
Who is correct? Well I guess that you have a couple of hundred years of not-quite-modern history to back you up whilst I have at least 50 years of modern western history to back me up. I also have the systems of checks and balances that should make such things impossible and the fact that modern media means that the populace is aware of potential issues almost instantly - something that has never before been true in history.
But I don’t think that either side can prove their case - that’s what makes it an axiom. So tell me that you really, truly believe in your doomsday scenarios and I’ll leave you alone.
pan