Is that really true? Because I don’t recall the Army or the Navy being completely dismantled after the Revolution ended.
At any rate the United States Constitution Article 1 Section 8 defines the role of congress. In Clause 12 it states “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”
Clause 15 goes on to state “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
You’re correct that the founders did fear a standing army but at the same time they realized they needed a professional army. So they made sure the military was on a limited budget approved by congress.
The Army and the Militia were both mentioned in the body of the Constitution. The Federal Government fully expected a standing army to coexist with a militia.
I don’t think it is vital. Countries such as the UK, Japan, Sweden, and Germany seem to be doing ok without most of the population being armed. But I do view it as another layer of protection that fits in with checks and balances within the government, and rights such as free press, free association, and all our other wonderful rights.
**
I really don’t have a big fear of the government right now. But I certainly wouldn’t say it was “impossible” for it to turn into a tyranny. It is possible that things like free speech, assembly, and all the others we take for granted could be removed.
OK put it this way - in any such scenario, by the time the rights, checks and balances in society are removed to the point that a dictatorship can set itself up, things would be soooo fucked up across the whole of society that the issue of whether it is legal or not to hold guns would be a moot point.
It would take time to get to such a pass, people would know about it due to an all-pervasive media and no country exists in a vacuum anyway. If you want to arm yourself against the oppressive government, there would be plenty of time to do so.
That’s all I was trying to get at though, really. An argument of “we need guns to defend our freedom” fails for me at the first hurdle, as I tried to illustrate above. However, if someone takes it as axiomatic that their government may turn against them my counterargument also rather fails at the first hurdle.
If you want to keep guns for other reasons, that’s a whole other debate.
Absolutely. When governments are unable to govern, for whatever reason, loss of confidence of the people, civil wars, irretrievably corrupt administrators, whatever, there is a parallel breakdown in the rule of law. The citizens of that country no longer feel compelled to comply with the laws. Look at the break-up of the Soviet Union and the upsurge in criminal activity, or Czechoslovakia and the warring factions at each others throats, or any number of countries in South America with their armed bands roaming the streets, or the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the “ethnic cleansing. In all of these places as their governments come apart, the rule of law dissolves. In all these places, at certain times and under certain conditions, armed criminals hold sway over the rule of law. You speak of years of history backing both yours and my points, here’s another instance, or actually several instances, of history supporting my view. So, yes, I speak confidently of the “inevitable breakdown in the rule of law.”
Mgibson has already answered this pretty well and duplicated my own view admirably. Perhaps not vital, but a prudent safeguard, insurance, if you will. Also, I believe that private ownership of guns can ameliorate tyranny, should it somehow gain a foothold, at least at the personal level, which is all I’m really concerned with.
I suspect we do have an axiomatic difference, thus rendering debates on this particular issue ultimately futile, but still worth some discussiuon. But there’s something in that paragraph of yours that bothers me. You’ve said that you believe I feel it necessary to own “assault weapons.” To date, there is no consensus on just what constitutes an “assault weapon.” So, I cannot say whether I believe them necessary as I don’t even know what they are. If we use the broad (and way too flexible, in my opinion) definition of the State of California, I do not believe “assault weapons” are necessary. The definition California uses is aimed at cosmetic features, rather than functionality. There are any number of guns which do not fit California’s definition, that would fulfill their intended niche just as well, or better. However, simply because they aren’t necessary, is no reason to prohibit ownership of them. Sorry about the tangent. It isn’t totally germane to this issue, but I felt it helped clarify my position a bit, and that the distinction needed to be made.
Well, I don’t think I’d use the word “doomsday,” but let me see if I can sum up my belief of the unintended consequences of government are.
Democratic governments exist as a construct of man to promote the general welfare of society. Democratic republics, such as the U.S. perform this function by passing and enforcing laws within the framework of a constitution, or charter. The nature of laws, is that they inherently limit, or restrict, the activities of those that have consented to be governed. These restrictions are nominally for the benefit of the greater part of society. Governments, just as any other construct of man, are imperfect and make imperfect laws. Man, however, demands of his government, a striving for a probably unattainable perfection. Thus, governments exist in perpetuity, passing more and more laws while attempting to reach perfection. The result of this proliferation of laws, is greater and greater restraints on the activities of the governed. At some inevitable point, this structure become “top-heavy,” and tumbles, or as history repeatedly shows, is pushed. That is the point at which the rule of law breaks down. That is the point at which private ownership of the means to influence events, which again history shows us, is armaments, becomes critical. The U.S. ain’t at the precipice yet, but I’m happy I have that “insurance” I spoke of earlier which would allow me to influence events, if only at a personal level, should that become necessary.
All this can be summed up with something P.J. O’Rourke said of the first phrase of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union . . . “Are we done yet?”
Is that really the case? It is much easier to supress public free speech than private, and removing guns from everyone would be a difficult chore.
This is where my “registration” comes in, of course. And why so many gun owners are against registration, because when “they” come for the guns, they know exactly where to go. Well, I can’t really argue that. But how the hell else are we going to be able to keep them? Obviously acting responsibly isn’t enough. We get punished for the mistakes of criminals.
But do you feel this justifies removing our capacity for defense at any point along the chain?
(kidding)