Tell me gun control advocates: how can a dictator be stopped without arms?

Great Debates
261

Rubber Entropy: gold was vital to the precision electronics of WW II. Germany was desparate enough for it that they took it from the mouths of millions of Germans, Jews, Gypsies, etc. And what would Hitler have bombed Switzerland with? Germany never developed Strategic Bombers, only Medium at best, and never in sufficient quantities to be truly effective. True, they could have bombed, damaged and maybe even incapacitated Switzerland’s munitions industry, but that only negates their ability to make more munitions. It does nothing to the stores stockpiled in mountain hidey-holes.

Are you actually advocating that, despite their proclaimed neutrality, the Swiss were blind to the threat of Hitler and National Socialism? That they took no measures, made no plans, to deal with Nazi Germany should the push come to shove?

If so, I’d like to see a cite, please.

And you’re the first gun-control advocate who’s acknowledged that small partisan units can cause damage all out-of-proportion to their size. Considering that a healthy chunk (perhaps 25 million or so) of the American population are prior [military] service, some even combat veterans of Vietnam, I would think that, if the unlikely were to happen and either a powerful outside aggressor invaded or some lunatic managed to wrest power without popular consent (and could make it stick), then it is possible for individual citizens from small communities to large cities to band together into partisan units, use CB and HAM radio to coordinate their activities (even if it’s between Smalltown and Littletown, USA) and be anywhere from a mild annoyance to a major pain-in-the-ass.

The equation breaks down as thus:

Powerful Outside Aggressor:

USA’s active military: about 1 million, w/ tanks, warplanes, gunships, carriers, cruisers, etc.
Reserve/National Guard: about another million, w/ tanks, warplanes, gunships, etc.
Militia: approx. 130 million, with everything from full-auto machineguns and assault rifles, easily convertible semi-auto assault weapons, and literally 10’s of millions of high-powered, scoped hunting rifles.

Internal Lunatic w/o Popular Support:

Same as above, with some military falling in with him, and some deserting to fight the evil distator, and about 130 million gun nuts to join them. :slight_smile:

Sounds like a recipe for an Excedrin Headache to me. Either scenario is problematic, just too many variables. Even 10 million militia volunteers acting as amateur snipers can take a heavy toll on the leadership of either an invader or a junta. As you pointed out, the VC were very good at wreaking havoc, and were great intelligence gathering assets as well. Their deliberate targeting of S. Vietnam’s civillian infrastructure certainly took some measure of strength from the South; even if all it did was to cow the general populace into not fighting the North.

As to my quoting Machiavelli, take your exception up with him. But, by your very wording, you agree with him when you state (emphasis mine):

Machiavelli:

He didn’t say that they stood forever armed and free. IIRC, Gaius Marius was about the mid to low 100s, B.C., yes? That’s still about 4 centuries of sucessfull citizen republicanism. While I’ve never heard of Arausio, do you have any information attributing the loss at Arausio directly to incompetent citizen soldiers? Or did their commander get caught with his toga around his ankles, as so many before and certainly after him have?

Svinlesha:

See above. At least one of your couterparts disagrees with you to some extent. Standing military forces are known quantities. Citizen militias are not.

How do you tell 10 Partisans from 10 Civillians? When the Partisans start shooting you up, that’s generally a good indication. What I’m saying is that, unless there’s a catastrophic breach in internal security, Partisans will always have the initiative, and regualr forces will forever be reacting to their moves. The weakness of Partisans is generally their dispersion, their inability to strike decisive blows at the regulars. But the gradual, insidious effect that they can have upon morale can be devastating. The level of scrutiny and paranopia a soldier develops to combat partisans is often counter-productive, and the stress can be a bitch. Ask a Vietnam Vet.

The quote in question was indeed lifted from a Swiss governmental publication, and quoted in Prof. Davis Kopel’s book, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (Prometheus Books 1992), named 1992 Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology Division of International Criminal Justice.
I believe that they (the Swiss) lifted it from the same source: the aforementioned professional journal of one of the Nuremburg defendants. You’ll have to indulge me a bit on time; I’m away from home (and my trusty gun store with it’s great library of pro-gun literature). I’ll try to find one locally this Saturday for the actual source.

Your link to Mr. Huppi’s page was informative: he’s citing a 10-year old HCI article. While HCI certainly isn’t alone in this, they have a way of creatively rearranging numbers to support their arguments. A cite from the Swiss Gov’t, or an International Medical Journal would be preferable.

But he (as well as HCI) come right out and say it here. I quote:

Mr. Kanga’s “Liberal FAQ” is so off base. First he agrees (by posting HCI stats) that enforcement of existing gun control laws is sufficient to reduce violent crime, and then turns around and tries to paint the NRA and gun owners as the boogeymen for supposedly “resisting” gun-control laws in his opening statement:

The NRA advocated and lobbied for “Project Exile” an intensive effort to reduce gun violence by enacting an automatic 5 year federal sentence for getting caught and convicted for having a gun illegally; the NRA has been howling (to borrow a phrase) for more rigorous enforcement of our current gun-control laws for years! And, he (and HCI!) conveniently ignore a perfect example that blow’s their neat little chart right out of the water: Mexico. Very tough gun control laws; outrageous levels of gun violence.

Where the NRA has been drawing the line, my dear foreign friends, is the enactment of new, more restrictive gun control laws until the current laws are routinely enforced;and the enactment of new gun control laws that are thinly disguised stepping-stones to total gun bans by avowed gun banners.

I have long advocated some common sence guidelines that gun owners could follow voluntarily, w/o the need for laws, that would help alleviate the situation as well. Like Minty Green’s comment above about signifigant portions of society safely and sanely enjoying the effects of alcohol, there is a signifigant portion of American Society, the “Gun Culture”, that is safely, sanely and above all else, legally enjoying the recreational shooting sports and gun ownership.

This is all I have time for right now; I have a bag full of laundry that need to be folded. More on this later.

262

This argument ignores the inherent difficulty of enforcing many current gun control laws, which are almost entirely aimed at individual misuse of firearms that are generally unrestricted. It’s a lot more effective to prohibit manufacture, distribution, and possession of all firearms than it is to go out and search–within the realms of the Fourth Amendment–for firearms that are possessed illegally.

This is a gigantic overstatement of the NRA’s position on current gun control laws. It is ridiculous to assert that the NRA supports enforcement of existing laws when they actively and vocally oppose all kinds of existing gun control measures. The Brady Law is only one example of a law that the NRA leadership openly despises, despite the fact that it’s been the law for eight years or so.

263

I have no idea if the Swiss had prepared for a German invasion, and I certainly can’t provide a cite to prove a negative, ie that they didn’t. Can you provide one that says they did ? I suspect, given the close economic, cultural, and linguistic ties between Switzerland and Germany, and the essentially rightist nature of the Swiss,that there was never any serious danger of invasion.

The collection of gold from concentration camp victims probably had less to do with its strategic importance than teutonic efficiency, since spectacles, clothing, and even artificial limbs were collected equally assiduously.

While it is true that Germany never really developed an effective strategic bombing capacity, she didn’t really need one. The incredibly thin margin by which the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe in 1940, and the sustained bombing of Britain’s industrial capacity until at least 1944 indicated that Hitler did quite well with medium bombers.
Quote:

“And you’re the first gun-control advocate who’s acknowledged that small partisan units can cause damage all out-of-proportion to their size.”

End Quote:

Do not mistake the above as refering to ‘citizen militias’ I am refering to organizations such as the French and Belgian Maquis, the Dutch resistance, and the Viet-Cong. These units were established after occupation, armed externally, and in the case of their strategic commanders trained outside the country by their benefactor states. The one thing they all had in common was that there were not that many of them engaged at any one time, there couldn’t be if an effective chain of command was to be maintained without making security impossible. This really is not even close to the millions of armed civilians scenario.

In Vietnam it was the fact that there were so many people without guns that made it so bloody difficult to find those that did. Our job might actually have been easier if every second civilian had a gun, at least we would have known who the enemy were.

About the only positive benefit of all those untrained, undisciplined civilians talking on insecure CB radios, and having to supply themselves with umpteen different types of ammunition, would be to give the real military time to establish its insurgent command structures while the enemy spent a month or two wiping the poor buggers out.

It takes time to build an effective guerilla army, The Vietnamese had 25 years of practice against the Japanese and French by the time we got there. It may sound harsh but a well armed rabble is still a rabble. It is not weapons that make an effective guerilla force, it is strategic planning, effective command structures able to sustain the loss of vital elements, effective logistics and effective intelligence.

Finally, although not meant as seriously relevant to this debate, Arausio WAS the result of two citizen generals refusing to act as military professionals. One army under Proconsul Gnaeus Mallius Maximus was attempting negotiation with the enemy as a delaying tactic to enable a linkup with a second army under Consul Quintus Servilius Caepio. Caepio felt insulted that the Senate should deem him in need of help so decided to attack on his own and was wiped out, leaving Maximus and his army to fight and die alone.

http://www.britannica.com/seo/b/battle-of-arausio/

264

…and I don’t really like it. While I go out of my way to meet all the argument of the “pro-gun” crowd, and especially to dissect their “strong” pro-gun arguments, you gun-nuts continue to ignore my objections, focus solely on your strongest case, and respond selectively to my (and my compatriots) posts. Here are some examples:
[ul][li]Exhibit A:[/ul] Towards the top, on page 4: I point out that Uncle Beer contradicts himself in his own argument, first stating that there is “lots of gun violence” in America, but then refuting that by insisting that “Less than 1% of all firearms in the U.S. are ever used in the commission of any crime, much less a violent crime.” I ask him repeatedly to clarify this point.[/li]
The response? Uncle Beer sez, “Whoa, this thread’s too ‘incoherent’ for me. I’m going out to the range to do some shooting.”
[ul][li]Exhibit B:[/ul]Freedom completely misconstrues Abe’s – no, I mean Cumber’s – no, wait, I do mean Abe’s – arguments in favor of stricter gun regulation (see what you made me do, Tank?), insisting that Abe’s stance is equivalent to an argument for totalitarianism. This goes on for several posts until I take Freedom’s advice and compare his argument with Abe’s, clearly demonstrating that Freedom’s reasoning misrepresents Abe’s position.[/li]
The response? Freedom ducks out of the thread for a few pages, then returns with a link to an extreme right-wing web page, and never admits his mistake.
[ul][li]Exhibit C:[/ul]I ask Fenris (or anyone else for that matter) to explain to me why there should not be a ban on the private sale of firearms, given the inherent difficulties of checking the background of potential buyers as a private citizen. I make the request repeatedly, challenging anybody to “explain why I’m wrong.” I ask repeatedly what the NRA’s position is on this issue.[/li]
The response? BF answers a different question.
[ul][li]Exhibit D:[/ul]ExTank claims, “no law ever devised, that I can think of, has ever physically prevented anyone, anywhere, at any time, from committing an act or using a commodity.” I dispute this and give counter examples. I also point out that this stance would seem to imply that Tank supports the legalization of hard drugs such as heroin.[/li]
The reply? Tank starts arguing about the effectiveness of the Swiss militia in deterring Hitler.
[ul][li]Exhibit E:[/ul]amrussell wonders, in a thoughtful post, how thorough a “five minute” background check at a gun show can be, and points out that it is worthwhile comparing different countries in terms of gun ownership and gun violence. No one replies.[ul][*]Exhibit F:[/ul]I present a strong argument as to why guns should be more strictly legislated, which I call “synergetic potentiality” – the fact that nut-basket with a gun, for example, is more dangerous than a nut-basket without one. Minty supports the argument with a news link about a crazy Japanese fella who attacks a school armed with a knife. Result? 10 people wounded, none killed. Who knows what might have happened if he had an AK47?[/li]
The counter argument? Compact silence.
I could go on (there are a lot more examples), but I think you get my point. Now that we have apparently refuted all, or almost all, of the arguments that you “gun-nuts” have at your disposal, do you think it would be too much to ask of y’all to respond to something substantial, rather than continuing to engage in pointless bickering about the potential, untested might of the Swiss militia?

ExTank and RubberEntropy:

Look, the actual effectiveness of the Swiss militia vis-a-vis a Nazi blitzkrieg is not at issue here. We can speculate about that question all day, but we’ll never know which side would win, because the Germans never invaded Switzerland. And truth to tell, in this context, it’s really, really irrelevant, because the point Tank is trying to make is that it was Hitler’s perception of Swiss military prowess that deterred him from attacking – not the militia’s real competence.

The same holds true for Tank’s arguments regarding the US now. He would have us believe that a heavily armed population creates in eyes of would-be aggressors – both inside and outside the country – a perception of the US as essentially unconquerable, or at the very least, extremely difficult to subdue. This perception may or may not be an illusion. Its “reality” is irrelevant, as long as it has the effect of deterring the bad guys. In making this argument, Tank must know that this sort of deterrence comes with a very high price tag, socially. Snug in his little white-bread home, it’s a price he’s willing to pay. Shame a few school kids get knocked off now and then, but hey life’s shit, ain’t it? Never mind all the thoughtful counter-arguments that have been presented in this thread by me and other good posters; it’s much better to waste lots of time arguing that a citizen’s militia is effective, and we know so, because Nicolo Machiavelli told us it was so. And anyway, liberal gun laws don’t have a high social price tag – that’s all a buncha hookie. We’re actually safer here in America with all of our guns than you are over there in Europe without them. Etc, etc…the fine art of necrohippoflagelatus in action.

Finally, regarding the Battle of Arausio:

Mallius Maximus was a stoodge from the beginning. The Illuminatus had it in for Quintus Servilius ever since he betrayed the Five and threw in with the JAMs. They managed to place a military advisor at his side, who said just the right words in just the right moment, and the rest was history. The JAMs blundered, quite simply, and it took them several hundred years to recover. In the resulting power vacuum, the Illuminati Primi duped Gius Marius into consolidating their power and wiping out the previous republican reforms; and that’s how we know that the concept of a standing Army is actually yet another nefarious Illuminati plot.

I hope this clears this issue up once and for all. But if you have any other questions about the true history of the Roman Republic, please don’t hesitate to ask.

:smiley:

265

And it was a darned good example when I posted that link last night. Unfortunately, it turns out this morning that eight little kids have died. :frowning: But I think the basic point is still good–this attack would almost certainly have been a lot worse if the nut-basket had an AK-47. Eight dead has got to be some sort of record for a knife attack, but it’s probably not even in the top 100 for nut-baskets who go postal. Hell, that prince in Nepal managed to take out nine members of his family just last weekend.

266

Ok, I’ll bite. IANA NRA official, but based on what I’ve gleaned from NRA literature, the stance that the NRA takes on the sale of any type of legal firearm is that there should be no restrictions other than the ones already on the books regulating the sale of firearms between private citizens. So, yes, conceivably, I could unknowingly sell you (a convicted felon) my 9mm, which then you use to rob a bank and shoot two people. If they trace the gun back to me, I’m pretty sure I will be prosecuted for aiding and abetting a felon by selling a firearm to you. OK, now what?

267

As I understand the law, BF–and I could be wrong–you would not have committed a crime unless you knew that the guy was a felon. And of course, without a required background check for private sales, you have no way of knowing the purchaser is a convicted criminal, do you?

So . . . I assume the NRA opposes mandatory background checks for private sales?

268

BF sez:

Groovy! Not too hard, I hope.

First off, that’s an awful lot of initials to start a sentence with. Secondly, assuming that you are correct regarding the policy of the NRA, then that means that the NRA does not support any legislation that would require private citizens to conduct background checks when selling firearms.

You’re “pretty sure?” How sure is that exactly? If the law doesn’t require you to do a background check when you sell me a 9mm, how can it prosecute you when I turn out to be an ex-con?

You see, this contradicts Tank’s earlier contention – that it is actually perfectly legal for you to sell me, a convicted felon, a 9mm, as long as you at least ask me (or can even claim to have asked me), “Are you, or have you ever been, a felon?” According to Tank:

Since the law does not require a private seller to run a background check, the law can hardly hold him responsible should the buyer turn out to be a convicted felon afterwards (I believe there is a technical term for that sort of law, is there not, mints?) Anyway, even Tank thinks that such private sells should be regulated. At the same time he supports the NRA, which, apparently, doesn’t. Can anyone here say, “cognitive dissonance?”

Well, first off I thank you for at least taking out the time to respond to my question. Secondly, I have the dubious honor of pointing out that, I think, anyway, your Hunter S. Thompson sig line quote is wrong. It should read, “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”

It’s one of my all-time favorite quotes, by the way. Truly words to live by!

269

IANA NRA official, but from what I understand, the answer is the NRA opposes mandatory background checks for private sales.
FWIW, I sell my cousin my old shotgun because I’ve got an eye on a new one, I have to call some one in charge to get an A-Ok?

270

IANAL, but from what I understand, if I unknowingly buy stolen goods say from a pawn shop, I can be prosecuted for possession of stolen goods. I extrapolated from my layman’s understanding of the law, if you break a law unknowingly, you are still culpable.

As to the cognitive dissonance statement, are you saying that one cannot belong to an organization if they do not agree with everything that organization espouses?

BTW, my sig, I like it too, the way I read it.

271

You seem to be thinking of “strict liability” crimes, Svin. Those are crimes where the law doesn’t care about the actor’s state of mind. They’re exceedingly rare. Nearly all other crimes require some sort of state of mind, e.g., “intentionally,” “knowingly,” “recklessly” doing a prohibited act. I do not know the federal statute that prohibits gun sales to felons, but I assume it requires at least a “knowingly” state of mind.

BF: I can’t testify to other states, but there’s no strict-liability crime in Texas for possessing stolen property. If you’re knowingly in possession of stolen property, you can be charged with theft. Tex. Penal Code section 31.03(b)(2). It’s possible that stolen property is a strict liability offense in other states–but I’d be surprised.

272

Svinlesha

I dropped out of this discussion because I felt it had degenerated into a non-productive pissing match.

You obviously think I’m misconstruing your (and Abe’s) arguements, and I also feel that my words have been twisted.

I will not concede anything to you in this topic because the whole thread is a twisted mess. I’m not sure you have any idea what my positions are, and I’m willing to accept that I may have misinterpreted the other sides arguements.

In retrospect, if the OP didn’t warn me away, the pit thread should have.

With the high tension surrounding this thread, I decided to withdraw from it. Ex-Tank came around and things seemed to become a little more rational between the two sides. I stayed out of the discussion until I saw what I considered to be a NEUTRAL place I could contribute without turning the thread back to it’s combative state of page 3 and 4.

IMHO you continue to skew facts about me and slant the arguement.

While …

Might be factually correct, it is misleading. I jumped back in with a RELEVANT and FACTUAL excerpt about Swiss gun laws.

I never attempted to push the conclusions of the entire piece, nor did I attempt to mask the source of the article. It just seemed ridiculous to me to be arguing about Swiss gun laws without knowing anything about them.
If you want, I am willing to debate you, and anyone else, about guns in another thread where we start from scratch. I would prefer to keep the debate civil and focused. This thread is fucked in so many different ways that it seems unsalvageble to me.

273

Fair enough. I’m sorry if you feel I slanted your arguments; I’ve tried to be as objective about them as I can be, but I have to admit that have strong opinions on this issue, and I might not always see straight. In addition, I just can’t help cracking a joke or two in my posts, and I hope you weren’t offended by them. They were gently meant, even if crudely delivered, and an argument without a dash spice is a boring read, indeed.

I wish you had explained that you felt this way when you dropped out. As it was, considering your lack of response, I could only assume that you didn’t want to admit that you were wrong.

Point taken.

Yeah, I suppose you’re right. The problem is that there are too many details to discuss. Anyway, strange though it may sound, I’ve enjoyed debating you and look forward to doing so again.

274

Quote:

The same holds true for Tank’s arguments regarding the US now. He would have us believe that a heavily armed population creates in eyes of would-be aggressors – both inside and outside the country – a perception of the US as essentially unconquerable, or at the very least, extremely difficult to subdue. This perception may or may not be an illusion. Its “reality” is irrelevant, as long as it has the effect of deterring the bad guys.

end Quote:

This point is actually closer to the question posed in the OP than most other things we have touched on.

The probable reality is that the ‘bad guys’, unless they are led by commanders with no understanding of guerilla warfare, will NOT be deterred by a vast armed rabble. In fact as an ex infantryman of 12 years, 2 in Vietnam, I would frankly have loved the excuse to request heavy suppressive techniques in civilian areas that such a rabble would provide.

I can understand why lots of armed people might seem a deterrent, but giving someone a weapon does not make them a soldier, any more than giving them a paintbrush makes them an artist. Does Tank really want cluster-bombs and white phosphoros raining down on his wife and kids ?

Sure we had these in Vietnam and we still lost, but that was because politically we could not use them effectively. A vast armed populace could have given us the means to overcome the political objections.

I confidently predict that I will now be castigated for wanting to demolish civilian areas with heavy weapons, but hey, you had to be there.
It is interesting to note, though not directly relevant, that during WWII in the Balkans where significant armed militias existed (and still do), as much effort was expended fighting amongst themselves as fighting the Germans. A fact that the Germans took full advantage of by actually arming some of them.

And just for you - Your description of events leading up to Arausio in no way conflicts with mine and is essentially accurate if, by Illuminati you mean the Boni.

This however does not alter the original premise. That the Republican military was essentially a group of private militias owing allegiance to their politician commanders before Rome, and as such was less effective that the professional army of the Imperial period.

In many cases legions were used to reinforce factional political interests such as the Ordo Equester using them to support the draconian tax farming methods of the Publicani in the eastern provinces. While making some individuals very wealthy this created such bitter resentment of Rome that insurrection and war occured in what had previously been a quiet province. Hmmm, shades of 1776 ?

As you know, the Roman constitution forbade any Roman army entry to Rome and some legions, notably the Fimbriani serving in Pontus, were forbidden EVER to return to the Italian mainland due to their record of mutiny and murder. Not a good model for an effective military.

In theory Marius reforms provided a professional standing army owing allegience to Rome. Initially this was true as his defeat of the Germans illustrated, but by his seventh consulship he had totally lost the plot.

275

I forgot to ask.

Could you please stop referring to us as “Gun Nuts”. Judging by the bulk of your posts it should be beneath you.

I hold a position that differs from yours, it actually differs from everybody in this debate as I sit in the middle of the two extremes, but I do not consider myself, or any of the firearms advocates posting here to be “Nuts”.

276

Svin: ain’t no cognitive dissonance here. You’ve never heard of a Catholic having an abortion? We do what we can, as we may. Did you not see this:

Speaking of which…

Minty:

Why yes, it certainly is. Which is why I and others oppose anyone who would suggest such a thing.

And your representation of the NRA’s position is pure HCI propaganda. The NRA (among others) opposed the Brady Bill because waiting periods have no proved efficacy on reducing violent tendencies in someone tending towards violence. And with the [then] state of the criminal record-keeping systems, a five day background check was no more efficacious than an instant one. The background check itself, as a concept, was not opposed by the NRA.

The only reason that HCI wanted a five day period is because, after it failed to produce any results (as everyone knew it would, except that the NRA and other pro-gun rights activists had the guts to come out and say it openly), they could then come back in a few years and ask for a 30 day waiting period, then a 90 day period, then a 6 month period…all in the name of making law-abiding gun owners (the only type that will willingly, lawfully fill out the ATF Form 4473, submit to a background check) jump through increasingly tortuous hoops to acquire firearms until either it’s a bureaucratic impossibility or people decide it isn’t worth the hassle.

That’s the gun control endgame. There will never be an instantaneous total ban on firearms in America. If unopposed, there will be a gradual implementation of increasingly difficult obstacles, until such time as American citizens are disarmed. Most proponents of gun control do not desire that particular scenario; there are enough who do to make it stick. If unopposed.

Yet: in spite of a 33-year low in gun violence and homicide, a level not seen since the year I was born; in spite of the fact that firearms offense prosecutions plunged 44% since 1994, people like Minty and HCI want more gun control. Why?

The rest of the country doesn’t seem to think it’s necessary. In fact they don’t believe that the Brady Bill had any effect whatsoever.

The most strident and accusatory voice isn’t necessarily right. Just confess, Minty. You don’t like guns, you don’t like people who own guns, you just wish they would all disappear, and do what you can to make it so, legislatively. Yes?

Geberally Speaking: this has gotten pretty tortuous. Svin, I’m torn on the issue of drug legalization. I recognize the failure of our “War on Drugs”, and feel that at least marijuana could be safely legalized. But I would be hesitant to legalize hard drugs like cocaine or heroin, as our failure has been one more of methodology rather than intent, if ya dig. At least IMHO.

But your “price tag” analogy fails. There is no proven, or even suggested (that I know of) direct or indirect correlation between gun ownership and violent propensities in individuals or societies. In acknowledging that yes, guns are the preferred tool for those with violent tendencies, and that yes, easy access to guns will make a violence prone society pretty bloody, I disagree that blanket restrictions will curb or stem the flow of gun into the hands of people with violent tendencies.

Our War on Alcohol, and subsequent War on Drugs have shown that we cannot stem the tide of illegal commodities into our country; only curb it a bit from time to time with the occasional bust. This has had the unintended consequence of driving up the street price of drugs and forcing junkies into more desperate acts of crime to finance their addictions, and sent gangs into bloody competition to secure turf and drugs to sell for profit.

And to those who think that we can somehow stem a hypothetical tide of smuggled guns: if we can do that, then why can’t we enforce our current gun control laws and seperate the criminals from their guns? We can police 98% of our law abiding population, but we * cannot police the 2% that’s committing crimes? Especially violent ones? What kind of screwy non-logic is this? Go after the law abiding, becuase they are law abiding and won’t resist?

That sounds like the real recipe for tyranny to me.

Rubber: yes, guerillas do need all of that stuff you mention; any cohesive fighting force needs it, be it an infantry squad, a carrier group, or a football team.

But a militia is comprised of able bodied citizens subject to military service. Some militias are just better trained than others. The militia of the American Revolution overall wasn’t (Hollywierd drivel like The Patriot notwithstanding), as it was thrown together rather hastily and on short notice. But those people enlisting in the Continental Army, having been by default the militia, were much more familiar with firearms than even their British counterparts, having used firearms as hunters and such before becoming militia, then soldiers. And the Colonial Militia did prove to be of some limited usefullness as scouts/spys, and light raiders. Imagine if they’d had a bit of regular training and discipline instilled into them before being sent out. They could have quite conceivably plinked the British to distraction (diversion and delay, not attrition), cut off or reduced supply lines, shadowed and reported on British movements, strength and composition, assassination of British military and civillian leadership,…the mind boggles

You keep ignoring the large body of military experience walking about in the American population, through prior service and combat veterans of various actions, conflicts, what-have-you. All prior service except the disabled or infirm are subject to recall to duty in time of need. If there were such a need, we’d be pretty screwed anyway, but they just might have to provide their own arms. If not, having had their own, probably military surplus or derived from common military models, a working familiarity with firearms, their capabilities and limitations, is a lot more preferable than someone who’s never picked one up before.

And that doesn’t mean I advocate restriction of gun ownership to prior military service, though I do advocate at least a basic firearm safety course for any gun owner, with occasional renewal.

But, as I said before: please, if you are new to The Great Debates, this topic has been done to death. So please, pretty please, do a search of Great Debates for “Gun Control” and such and do a “little” ( :rolleyes: ) back reading before commenting much further.

277

I forgot. Anyone interseted in a good rundown of our current Federal Firearms Laws can go here. It’s PDF format so you need Adobe Acrobat, which is a free download here.

278

No. Guns are nifty. I like nuclear weapons and vials of cholera too. That doesn’t mean I want anyone to have access to them.

No. I’m not into self-loathing, and I like my friends. Even the paranoid ones who have concealed weapon permits.

You betcha, at least as far as private ownership is concerned. As I told my heavily-armed buddy this very evening, it ain’t you and me I’m worried about–it’s all the rest of you m-----f-----s with guns.

And I am not a hypocrite on this issue. If guns were totaly banned tomorrow morning, I’d turn my gun in to the Austin P.D. in a second. But I live in a country where guns are considered a birthright by many people, which means that measures to prevent their ownership by violent people are necessarily ineffective. If I were living in Afghanistan, I’d want to have a Kalishnikov too. I’m just crazy enough to think that Afghanistan is a bad role model for the rest of the world.

Absolutely. I support reasonable measures to retsict access to guns, and I vote accordingly for the most part. Guns ain’t my only issue, but they’re an important one, just as they are for you and Chuck Heston.

279

And for the sake of those who think that I’m a selfish, evil-minded s.o.b., I’d like to mention that a former student of mine was just killed by a goddamned handgun. If this is the same kid I taught at UT-Arlington almost nine years ago–and I am morally certain it is the same kid–Joey Cushman was in the first freshman English class I ever taught, back in the fall of 1992. Big blonde kid out of one of the Arlington high schools. Pretty conservative guy. I remember discussing a Stephen J. Gould essay in class with him for 20 minutes one day, which was one of the best moments of my college teaching career. Very smart kid, and I think I gave him an A based on class participation, although I seem to remember that he was right on the A/B border thanks to one bad paper out of four.

Needless to say, I am NOT a big fan of handguns right now. If this had been England or Japan, where cops barely even need to carry guns, a big blonde kid named Joey would most certainly be alive right now.

There are very few names I remember from my first class. Joey Cushman was one of them.

Shit.

280

Huh. That was my 1000th post. Somehow, I’m not in the mood for a MPSIMS party.