Common denominators can mislead. Consider the case of the man who mixed whiskey with water and got drunk, then mixed gin with water and got drunk, and finally mixed vodka with water and got drunk. Note that there is a difference between a democratic republic and democratic socialism.
-
A good number of those Americans are serving in the Armed Forces and have sworn to uphold the Constitution. Right there you have a group of folks who wouldn’t, IMHO, stand for the president abolishing elections. BTW, a good number of Servicemembers are in the Democratic Party and a good number are in the Republican Party. I just don’t see them all going along with dictatorial rule of the country.
-
You’re kidding about that “facist” [sic] remark, right? If you’re not, you have to be doing some seriously brain-damaging drugs. (BTW, it’s spelled “fascist.”)
Bullshit. Ford did not become president “in the exact same conditions” you described. I was alive at the time, and I swear I don’t remember:
[list=1][li]All civillian ownership of firearms is banned in the United States.[/li][li]Every civillian gun has been collected and melted down.[/li][li]Even hunting rifles are outlawed.[/li][li]Even security guards and private dicks are disarmed.[/li][li]The only people who can have guns are the police and the military,[/li][li]and even they have to turn their gun in at the end of their shift. This one is currently true, government-issued firearms are maintained in unit armories and the weapons are only issued when the Servicemember requires it for the duty assigned.[/list=1][/li]
Since your premise is bullshit, why are you so offended when someone points out the lack of merit to it?
The NRA often relies on intellectually dishonest straw man arguments to support its policy positions. For instance, when someone proposes a waiting period, child safety locks, or restricting access to high capacity magazines, it somehow gets interpreted as a denial of the right to bear arms, or at least as a step down that slippery slope. When a gun control advocate argues that gun control helps reduce violent crime, the NRA responds by lamenting how stupid it is that gun control advocates consider gun control a “panacea” for crime, suggesting that other crime control measures should be pursued “instead” of gun control. But which particular prominent gun control advocate has said that gun control is (pardon the pun) the “magic bullet” solution to crime? What were their exact words? What gun control advocate has said that gun control is a substitute, rather than a supplement, for other anti-crime initiatives? This is where the NRA argument hits the fudge factor–because it is a lot easier to construct a straw man and rip it apart rather than to grapple with a real debate.
And if you want to be a strict constitutional literalist, as some conservatives like to portray themselves, you would notice that the 2nd Amendment does not explicitly mention “firearms”, and it certainly does not mention any particular weapon. I think that from a common sense interpretation, it would be interpreted to include certain firearms and other weapons for reasonable self-defense and hunting. But where do we draw the line as to what weapons are useful for reasonable self-defense? I think virtually everyone would agree that people should not be allowed to build their own private nuclear warheads. It is also implausible that people would need personal missile launchers, nerve gas, biological weapons, and tanks (no matter how annoying your neighbor is) for reasonable self-defense and hunting. These are all “arms”, but we don’t say that the 2nd Amendment recognizes a right for people to “bear” them. On these points, virtually everyone (NRA or non-NRA) would agree, I think. But then the question of where to draw the line becomes more debatable–do people need high capacity magazines to defend themselves? Do people often find themselves in a situation where they have to mow down a couple dozen thugs who have broken into their home? Should felons be allowed to buy guns at gun shows? Is the public endangered by background checks? Etc.
So to cut to the chase, basically I see it not as a question of whether people have a right to bear arms–as there clearly is a right to self-defense that is rooted in nature. The question is as to the manner in which self-defense is pursued. People should have access to weapons that reasonably contribute to self-defense, without too much “collateral damage”.
Sorry, Monty, but it was specified in the OP that “the military is obeying the Presidents orders”, and Rule #1 Of This Thread is, YOU DO NOT QUESTION THE OP!
Hey, I know…since we don’t have guns, we could all just band together and smash the evil dictator’s tanks with comically primitive-looking booby traps made of big giant logs! And swing around on vines and stuff! Plus, the Force would be with us.
Glee very astutely mentioned the Taliban–what if the evil dictator is in fact installed in power by the very patriotic, gun-toting citizen militias which are supposed to defend the Republic? When you look at some of these guys, this is not an idle fear. Clearly, we need to disarm the white supremacist, microchip-implant-fearing, UN-hating loons before they can overcome us all. First thing we need to do is ban all civilian ownership of firearms; we need to collect all of them and melt them down…
Oh really? Let’s examine…
And what’s dishonest about that? Seems that if you can’t get a gun when you want to, your Right To Bear Arms has been “infringed”.
This is just out-and-out false. Do you even KNOW anything about the NRA aside from Anti-Gun propaganda?
You’d be surprised. I think the message is very clear when lots and lots of anti-gun initiatives are proposed with very little “other” legislation.
And you were accusing the NRA of making “dishonest straw man arguments”? “Arms” and “firearms” are accepted as being interchangable terms as far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned. It just means that things like knives and swords are just as protected under the 2nd Amendment… guns, however, are the major focus because they’re more powerful and, as a result, are believed by some to be more important.
This is painfully laughable. After this pooch-screw of an argument, how can YOU possibly accuse ANYONE else of making a “dishonest straw man argument”?
Actually, they’re all “ordinance”, and are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
I’d pour poison in his ear, marry his widow, and watch out for his kid. He’s liable to be pissed. :rolleyes:
*Originally posted by glee *
I thought a right-wing Government in Cuba (supported by US businesses) was overthrown by a popular revolution, using guns. The country has stayed an undemocratic one-party state ever since. (Is this a good or bad thing for you?)
There was a prosperous democracy in Cuba before the right-wing government replaced it in the 1950’s.
I thought the elected Allende Government in Chile was overthrown by a CIA-backed right wing dictatorship. (Was this a good or bad thing for you?)
Yes, that’s my understanding. I’m touched by your asking if it was good or bad for me. For me, the right wing dictatorship was a bad government. However, it resulted in Chile becoming a properous democracy, so there were good long-term impacts. I don’t know what would have happened if Allende had reained in power.
Germany has had a chequered history. Are you thinking of the rise to power of Hitler, or the overthrow of the East German satellite of the Soviet Union?
The former.
The US is a great country because of democracy, freedom of the press, freedom of information, freedom of worship etc.
I’m sure all Americans agree.
[b/]Lack of gun control has nothing to do with it.
Over here in Europe, we have stable democracies with gun control, and they work well. Note the common denominator.**
I’m unclear. What is the common denominator?
Philosophocles: Since SPOOFE has already thoroughly shredded your straw men, I’ll address one other issue you brought up:
How many self defense situations have you ever been in, to speak with any authority on the subject of how many rounds it may or may not take to hit and stop an assailant?
Anyway:
When it comes to Constitutional Rights and other civil liberties, “needs” based arguments are a tad specious.
After all, none of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are necessities to human existence (food, water, shelter, etc.) But they sure are nice to have anyway, hmmm?
How many preagnant women actually need an abortion? I would guess not very many; less than 1% maybe. Yet that is hardly an argument against the right of choice.
So it’s OK by you for a foreign power to assist in the violent overthrow of a democracy, provided there are ‘good long-term impacts’?
The common denominator I mentioned is democracy (see below).
This is below your normal standard! All are combinations of alcohol and water.
I offered the US, UK and Afghanistan as examples. As you know, they are respectively democracy with gun control, democracy without gun control and dictatorship without gun control. I think we all know which two are desirable places to live in. (I leave it to the student to give an example of dictatorship with gun control).
Your last point is interesting. My dictionary gives:
communism: society in which all property is publicly owned…
democracy: government by whole population, usually by elected representatives…
monarchy: government with a monarch…
republic: state in which supreme power is not held by a monarch…
socialism: theory which states that community as a whole should own ‘everything’…
totalitarian: centralised dictatorship requiring total obedience to the state…
(yes, I know they’re simplified!)
So the Soviet Union was never true communism, since the leaders always had private dachas, cars etc.
The UK is a democratic monarchy, the US is a democratic republic, Afghanistan is a totalitarian republic.
Using the above, is there any country which is socialist? (I suppose Cuba comes close).
Incidentally I can’t see how a one-party state can hold meaningful elections to qualify as a democracy…
:eek:
‘I offered the US, UK and Afghanistan as examples. As you know, they are respectively democracy with gun control, democracy without gun control and dictatorship without gun control. I think we all know which two are desirable places to live in. (I leave it to the student to give an example of dictatorship with gun control).’
should of course have read ‘UK, US…’
:o
*Originally posted by glee *
So it’s OK by you for a foreign power to assist in the violent overthrow of a democracy, provided there are ‘good long-term impacts’?
I meant exactly what I said. For Chile to become prosperous and to become a democracy were good long-term impacts. Would you be happier if Chile were poor and totalitarian?
The common denominator I mentioned is democracy.
OK, but what’s your point? We are discussing whether public ownership of arms will help prevent a democracy from becoming a tyranny. The US and the UK moved in the opposite direction at a time when the public could and did possess arms. Are you saying that Afghanistan moved from democracy to tyranny while guns were legal there?
The almost universal experience is that governments are over thrown, not by an armed and hostile citizenry, but by its own armed forces or by an invading foreign power. The American Revolution and the Russian Revolution certainly follow this pattern.
The people who fought the British regulars at Concord and Lexington and who besieged Boston town and fought at Bunkers Hill were not the ordinary Joe Blow members of the Colonial Rifle Association. Those people were the Mass. Militia acting under the orders of its own officers and command structure. The Minute Men were essentially the Delta Force of the militia detailed to respond to French and Indian raids on the frontier settlements on 30 minutes notice. Through out the Am. Rev. Washington’s armies were composed for the most part of local militia outfits called up for one or two or three months. In was not until the organization of the Continental regiments that Washington had troops that could be relied on not to pack up and go home whenever the mood struck them.
One irony of Lexington and Concord is that the arms the British were out to confiscate were supplied to the Mass. Militia by the British and the British also supplied the arms in the hands of the militia.
In the French Revolution, it was not until the organization of the National Guard that the Bourbon government was at any real risk.
Ahh december, in re the facts on the ground in Afghanistan, it went from a Monarchy with no effective gun control to a Soviet backed leftist republic with totalitarian aspirations with no gun control to a totalitarian Islamic state with no gun control.
Gun control or not ** in and of itself ** is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for any particular form of modern government, given the power of the modern state and technology. Not a statement either for or against gun control/lack of.
I think I actually discussed this issue with Ex-Tank and Freedom some months back. Let me first give me bonafides. I’m actually quite agnostic about gun control per se and gun ownership. In the context of the USA its normal and so banning it seems rather counter-productive yet at the same time the social structure which formerly guaranteed rather almost by default good gun ownership habits is fraying so some response must be made. That’s something for another thread.
Now, contra my dearest fan and friend Lib, it is my opinion that a logically and factually flawed opening premise not only can be critiqued, even shredded, but must be in order to achieve something more illuminating. See the discussion of abandoning civilization. (Or whatever the title was) Our OP with the rather sad overtones of Clinton obsession, was so flawed as to be laughable.
Now, let me suggest a more realistic (in the foreseeable future).
Let us say some charasmatic movement strikes the USA after several years of a major economic crisis brought on by percieved foreign influences etc. The detials need not concern us overly much. The movement bears some ressemblance to the Red-Brown populism of the 1930s, that is on a popular level there is a confused anti-foreigner and anti-other (percieved or actual minority) reaction combined with an anti-“Big Guy/Big Business” reaction. We can paint this left or right according to our desires, the leaderships actual ideological appartenance doesn’t matter overly much. (Note, I do not accept the Facist=Communist thing in terms of ideology etc.)
We can assume the following conditions:
(a) that the winning president and congressional majority got a least a plurality of the vote, perhaps a narrow one but…
(b) that this represented in raw numbers at least 35% or so of the total population, with regional differences of course.
© the winning coalition, let’s call it the RB populists or the RBP (Red-Brown Populists) also has some significant echo in the armed forces because of (i) populist focus (ii) nationalist and restorative appeals (iii) adoption of militaristic and anti-foreigner attitude which promise restoration of USA power. However not 100% of the military is with it per se (and maybe there are branch based differences?)
Now let us presume that after 2 or 4 years things begin to turn a bit on the RBP. The Dems and the Reps make common cause. Secret polls on the run up to the election suggest that the Pres will lose and the RBP will lose. However that they retain core support in some key areas, and that at least some portion of the military is with them.
The President builds up a media campaign suggesting there are “sinister foreign and ‘special interest’ groups working against the nation” --the whole ZOG thing in more intelligent langauge if you will. Certainly this red meat appeal is aimed at drumming up the core supporters and those wavering. Imagine the media campaign to your tastes.
Then, with some preconcoted plot/coup attempt martial law is declared on the run up to the election. With of course the necessary media prep to “discredit” the opposition.
(For those who see vague echoes of Algeria c. early 1990s, I make no apologies)
What do we see?
Let’s presume the military goes with the new dictator.
We’ve got some kick ass power here. Frankly, in 1790s a rabbely militia was barely able to fend of the half-baked attempts of a distant, slightly modernized monarchial government to retake it (i.e. the Americans would never have won without a professional army and key foreign assistance), then what on earth do you think some fucking hunting rifles and handguns will do?
(a) Not every gun owner in a real life scenario is going to go anti-government, romantic fantasies aside. Some, while sympathetic will ultimately not want to rock the boat. Others will side with the government for various reasons. Some of these people will in fact become pro-gov militias.
(b) a modern dictatorship can, if it wants to and is motivated to, marshal frightening resources. A visit to Algeria (or living in Egypt for that matter) is instructive.
© if you get to this point, what you desired to defend is already dead or so sickly as to need intensive care.
In order to effectively fight a modern state apparatus you need serious military arms and serious support. (Note, modern colonial war contra examples clearly are not terribly applicable since the colonial power is capable of retreat and more susecptible to international pressure. Whereas the FLN generals in Algeria, e.g., they have no where to go – in large part-- so they will fight tooth and nail. And they have done so. Algiers, the capitial is quiet now, at what cost?)
In our scenario we need some portion of the military to go over to opposition. We need folks to break into National Guard armories to obtain anti-armor weapons and anti-air weapons to at least partially neutralize the same. The issue is also likely to be regional.
Frankly aside from the symbolism and perhaps some training value, private gun ownership matters not a damn in this equation.
That of course is not per se an argument for gun control – security and safety issues still loom for example – but is an argument against romantic and simplistic “guns = freedom” ideas.
(Or I could just take you all on a field trip to some places I’ve been where people are armed to the teeth but I didn’t see much ‘freedom’)
Thank you thank you thank you for bringing this up. Might I also add that the events in Cuba and Chile would not have happened had the US not so blatantly interferred? Ignoring sovereignty? Doing EXACTLY what many extreme right wingers state that the UN is doing to us? After all, Allende was elected. However, since he was a Marxist, we had to overthrow him-even if it meant someone like Pinochet.
To keep controlling Cuba (and many many other parts of Latin America-such as Honduras and Nicaragua), we kept our puppet governments in there, screwing everyone right and left, until they finally got so tired of it, they supported Castro, simply because they HATED the US.
(Read: Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America, by Walter LaFeber. And lest you think that some of the governments we supported were better than the commies, read Murdered in Central America, by Donna Whitson Brett and Dr. Edward T. Brett-my advisor)…
Sheesh…what about this scenario?
Guns never existed in the first place. (BTW, since the Right always says criminals are always going to have guns, it’s interesting that the OP states that it would be possible for all underground guns would be eliminated…)
Bullshit. The US controlled Cuba through various puppets since the Spanish American War.
Yeah, it was a prosperous democracy…if you consider herding people into soccer fields and mowing them down democracy…Mothers of the Disappeared, anyone?
Is one not allowed to say anything good about Pinochet? I said that his right-wing dictatorship was a bad government, which Guin agrees with. I said Chile has become (not was) a prosperous democracy, which is a fact. Pincochet deserves blame for the bad things his government did. He deserves credit for establishing an effective free market system and for voluntarily giving up his dictatorship and re-instituting democracy.
I have read this debate, and many others on the subject, with increasing despair.
As an Australian I would just like to say that I am so glad I live in a country that has never had a child shot to death in their classroom. We have had occasional horrendous gun crimes like the Port Arthur Massacre, carried out by a gun fanatic of the type that so vociferously fights sensible gun control, but they are very, very, rare, simply because guns are not easy to obtain.
Note I said “not easy to obtain” I did not say “cannot be obtained”. If you are of sound mind, without a criminal record, have a legitimate need and a safe place to use it, you can obtain a sensible civilian firearm without much difficulty
This is what we call RESPONSIBLE civilian gun ownership. I myself have a 12 guage shotgun and a .22 rifle that I consider essential tools on my farm. To get them in this country even after the introduction of the recent tighter legislation, I simply applied for a licence to own them. I proved my identity, stated my legitimate need, established that I had no criminal record and a licence was granted.
Had I asked for a licence to own a rapid-fire high velocity military style weapon I would have been refused on the grounds that I don’t really need one to shoot rabbits. If I had a problem with Kangaroos or Feral Bulls, I would have been able to establish a legitimate need for a larger calibre, high velocity weapon, but not a semi-automatic one.
Firearms here are part of the fabric of rural life, and are considered a tool like a hammer or a screwdriver. They are not to be seen as a toy for someone living a ‘Soldier of Fortune’ fantasy. I have a right to own them here, but that right does not supercede the right of others to be safe from them. Sensible controls have in the main done a pretty good job of protecting both of these rights.
As a father of three who in the service of my country has seen the effects of such weapons on human beings at first hand, I pray that the originator of this thread never has cause to regret his/her position.
You know…
You don’t really need THAT book. Read this one instead.
You don’t really need to live THERE. Live over here instead.
You don’t really need to worship THAT god. Worship this one instead.
I’m not quite sure what theory the Australian Constitution was based on, but over here we aren’t supposed to have justify our decisions.
That is the basis of freedom.