what should we do when they come for our guns?

Great Debates
81

kimstu
It scares you that I have strength of conviction, or that you don’t agree with my conviction? Something I am failing to understand in your comment toward me.

I am not what one would consider a “law-abiding citizen.” True, much of my conception of morality has come from being raised in a certain location with certain legal practices; I also do comply with many laws.

There are plenty of laws I break, however. My motivation for action or inaction rarely comes from the legality of the action.

Things I would go to jail for:
[li]Owning a gun. (have gone to jail for “improperly” transporting a firearm)[/li][li]Using drugs.[/li][li]Free speech.[/li][li]Equality of freedom.[/li]
There are more, of course, but that’s just a sample. There are quite a few laws that I don’t break because they are illegal, but those are the ones I am ambivalent on from a moral or ethical analysis.

You would prefer that people lie down for their beliefs in the general case, or what? I totally don’t understand your point.

collounsbury

Give me a few hours and I will come up with some sources (I’m at work now, and sources are at home) but the book “The Phenomenon of Revolution” would have a few hundred pages of pointed things to say in regards to this.

An informed populace is not sufficient. It is necessary, though, I will agree there. Democracy is not foolproof, and I think in the world of gun control it has failed miserably. Because of the difficulty in repealing laws democracy in action seems to be more of a steady drive toward ubiquitous regulation.

The Economist’s June 9th issue had something to say on the matter, though it was more in line with the drinking age…

While I doubt that the Economist would support a pro-gun stand, I think these comments speak for themselves.

I would posit the following as axiomatic within the context of this debate: all abstract systems can fail. As a corrolary: if there is no method to catch a failing system, that system will destroy itself. We take it as a given that the market cannot regulate itself, and so we set up a catch for that: government backing of the market and regulation. We take it as a given that people cannot get along peacefully in general, and we have a backing for that: a set of legislation aimed at keeping people “nice” and a police force to uphold it. We take it as given that nothing is foolproof…

Except the God-blessed and shining achievement that is the democratic process. That puppy can somehow take care of itself through nebulous “checks and balances.” I say: bullshit. Democracy fails all the time. When democracy fails, there is nothing holding it up, except the armed populace with guns under their coats. Maybe I’m tainted by reading that book on revolution, maybe I’m stating something that is more obvious than market failure.

I am very disappointed in every country which does not allow its citizens to protect themselves from the failings of their government.

82

erl: It scares you that I have strength of conviction, or that you don’t agree with my conviction?

Neither one. I don’t know for sure that there’s anything about your projected response to the OP scenario that scares me at all, because you have simply indicated a willingness to refuse to comply with the law and not specifically a willingness to commit violence in doing so.

*You would prefer that people lie down for their beliefs in the general case, or what? I totally don’t understand your point. *

I would prefer that people not shoot police officers in the legal exercise of their official duties, even if those duties should at some point happen to entail confiscation of certain firearms. I hope I have finally managed to make that point clear.

83

RE: erislover’s post 08-24-2001 01:38 PM

This is just futile. Our friend seems to be operating out of a reality of his own creation. We are not dealing with reason; we are confronted either with perverse contrarianism or with outright paranoia. This may be the result of watching too many John Wayne movies. It has about as much to do with reality as the goofy movie about a bunch of Colorado adolescents fighting the Russian Army to a standstill. In any event, it doesn’t have anything to do with the real world. The whole thing is a hypothetical built on an unreasonable and unlikely assumption. It is balderdash.

There is no credible indication that our system of representative democracy is about to collapse into a despotic tyranny. If that does happen we know what the result will be. Look to Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Israel and Central America as places where an armed citizenry exacerbated the breakdown of order. If you want an example in our own history look to the Whiskey Rebellion.

I repeat what I said before. What we have here is a campaign the primary effect of which is to separate the credulous from their money for the benefit of firearms manufacturers and the lobbying organizations and politicians who are their clients. Do you thing for a moment that if Colt, Remington, Winchester, Strum and the like were not realizing a increase in sales from all this, the whole “cold dead hands” movement would not be as isolated and as out of touch as the people who insist that NASA photos of the moon are faked?

84

Amazing.

  1. When democracy breaks down, it doesn’t mean order went with it, nor does it mean it must break down into despotism. It merely-- ready?-- breaks down and ceases to function.

  2. I have never watched a John Wayne movie in my life.

  3. Democracy is all about creating reality :stuck_out_tongue:

  4. It doesn’t matter whether or not democracy is “about to collapse.” What, should they just hold our guns for us until democracy is about to collapse? “Ok, guys, we’re ready to revolt. Give us our guns back.”

Your opinion on this matter is entirely conducive to explaining my point: I disagree with you; therefore, I am creating my own imaginary reality. The fair democratic discussion breaks down. Good thing you cannot remove my posting priviledges; I retain my defense.

Kimstu, I suppose I understand your condemnation of violence. I , too, as an ex-aynrandlover (snicker) despise violence as a primary means. However, I do think that sometimes it is all one has left. This is why, of course, police officers carry guns and other objects whose purpose is to impose pain and suffering, no?

85

:shrug:

I disagree with that. But then, I think Mohandas Gandhi and Dr. King were correct. I realize that many people do not.

86

RE: erislover’s post 08-24-20013:23 PM

I don’t want erislover’s posting privileges. I don’t want his firearms. I simply want to point out as strongly as I can without passing into an all out rant that his position and the suppositions it is based on are irrational. They may serve some personal need of his, but they simply do not withstand any reasoned analysis. If there is a parallel, it is the old joke about warding off elephants: I keep my guns to keep government from taking them away. But government isn’t trying to take your guns. See, it works.

87

Too idealistic for my tastes. There’s more than one thing you must have in order to protect against tyranny. An informed populace, a reasonable populace, an honest populace, an armed populace… because, sometimes, brains will only get you so far.

88

:shrug:

I disagree with that. But then, I think Mohandas Gandhi and Dr. King were correct. I realize that many people do not.

89

So then you disagree with my axiom and its corrollary? Or do you disagree that revolutions are fought with weapons? Or do you disagree that people should be allowed to revolt?

I honestly see nothing more democratic than a government who has the power pf physical force against its citizens to allow its citizens to also have the power of physical force over the government. Do you disagree with this as well?

I never said the government was trying to take my guns away. I said they shouldn’t. I do feel there is an unconscious trend toward the disarming of US citizens (unconscious meaning not directed by conscious thought, not meaning we all secretly want to be disarmed).

Please, rant away.

90

Andros, brains only work when you’re faced with an adversary that can be reasoned with. Sometimes, you are faced with an adversary that you CAN’T reason with.

For an example of this, I present the OP of this thread.

91

It is important for the populace to be armed, so that they can rise up against the government when its actions become tyrannical and indefensible.

Of course, if you’re smart, you’ll realize that you and all your buddies and your biggest rifles don’t have a shot in hell against the US military. You’d be better off with something a bit more powerful–say, a Ryder truck full of fertilizer.

And you don’t want to attack a military base, since they would be prepared for it and you couldn’t do much damage. An office building of mostly civilian employees would work. And you don’t want to do it in a major US city, but in a midwestern town that will never expect it.

Oh, wait…

I’m a fence-sitter on the subject of gun control, having no interest in owning one myself but doubtful of the benefits of more legislation. Still, I find the argument that we need our guns to protect us from a tyrannical government to be ridiculous. It isn’t a bad philosophical argument, and it wasn’t a bad one when the US military would have been just another bunch of guys with muskets. But as a practical matter, it’s meaningless today.

Why don’t those who believe violence is a proper response against a tyrannical government hold McVeigh up as a hero? Is it because his threshhold for tyrrany is lower than theirs? Is it because the reality of what it took to cause a successful and significant violent act against the US was less romantic than their idea of shooting Reno and her jack-booted thugs off their front porch?

I don’t mean to be vitriolic. I just don’t think that this argument has any practical meaning today, and I don’t think the pro-gun folks are helping themselves very much by using it.

Dr. J

92

Because McVeigh was criminally negligent when it came to choosing his target. If there hadn’t been civilians (i.e. non-government employees) there, especially children, many people would call him a hero.

93

DoctorJ…

Why not?

Kalashnikov…

Some people ALREADY call him a hero… unfortunately.

94

I don’t understand people who keep claiming that it’s ‘ridiculous’ that citizens armed with rifles and such could defend a country against a tyrannical government. History is full of examples of people doing just that. And in fact, one of the lessons of the 20th century is that it is damned hard or almost impossible to subdue a country when the citizenry is armed. We learned that in Vietnam, and the Russians learned it in Afghanistan.

More importantly, an armed citizenry acts as a check on power to KEEP things from getting out of hand. A potential despot has to worry that if he pisses off the armed citizenry too much that people will start taking pot-shots at him. In other words, if your armed citizenry presents a significant military or logistical problem for the government, they may just decide not to go down the path of subjugation in the first place.

I wonder if, when Adolf was busy looking for scapegoats, if he would have picked on the Jews had they been known for being ‘gun nuts’ who were armed and ready to resist?

The Jewish people learned their lesson, and ever since WWII Israel has maintained a large arsenal of weapons. And it has kept them free for the last 50 years, despite its being surrounded by enemies who want their land.

95

I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, gun ownership is a staple of life for Jewish citizens in Isreal.

So then why are so many American Jews so extremely pro-gun control in the United States?

96

But Sam, we were just informed that that is unrealistic hogwash! We’re just imagining that governments are often aggressive toward their own citizens! Today’s society isn’t the society of ten years ago, we just don’t need guns anymore!

Besides that, the US military could just carpet bomb all the cities where there is significant armed resistence! I mean, never mind that a scorched earth policy would completely ruin America even more than civil war, they’d do it to get at those armed citizens!

Besides even that, there’s no way a democratic government would elect an agressive dictator, steal land from people living on it, allow slavery, or create institutions that don’t have to answer to the legislative branch of the government… that’s just crazy. The Constitution will protect us.

You are creating your own reality, Sam. Please seek professional help.

97

The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (one of the most hardcore groups around) has some articles on that subject here:
http://www.jpfo.org/jewsandguncontrol.htm

98

I don’t know what his reaction would be, Anthracite, but I have wanted to reply to it for a couple of days. I’m just not as good at words as you or the other usual RKBA posters.

I’m torn on this. I can’t make it a clear-cut a decision as you do. Basically, I would probably go along with you. I am a passionate RKBA supporter, but also generally a law-abiding citizen.

However,a couple of caveats:

No one in any position of authority knows how many guns I have or what types. I fully intend that no one ever does. I am 100% adamantly opposed to any form of mandatory registration.

Before it ever gets to the point mentioned in the OP, the Supreme Court will be dragged into the debate (probably kicking and screaming all the way. The USSC won’t touch a Second Amendment case with a 10 foot pole). Until the USSC rules against the Second Amendment, the concept of civil disobedience to a law (or laws) percieved as unconstitutional or illegal is valid. Each person must weigh the risks as a personal decision. There is a long tradition of this in our country. My own belief is that the RKBA side will eventually prevail.

In any case, I am and will be an active and vocal RKBA supporter. See my previous post in this thread. It was a huge relief to me (and many others) when the previous administration came to an end.

It is doubtful that anyone could “come for our guns” in terms of nationwide door-to-door searches. The types of infringements on individual civil liberties that would be necessary to even consider when implementing any type of serious confiscation scheme would make the American people howl.

I can build a gun. From steel and wood. It’s not really that difficult a task, let’s remember that very good guns were being built hundreds of years ago with little more than hand tools. I can make gunpowder. I can make cartridges. While guns can be made illegal (possibly, I doubt it), no one can prevent me from possesing one if I want one.

99

And just one more thought, to all:

If I am ever in a position where I feel a gun is necessary for my personal survival, or that of my family, I WILL possess a gun. Regardless of the laws.

In my eyes, my right to personal survival is paramount. It overrules all laws and regulations.

It’s a trite saying, but there is a certain amount of grim sense to it: “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6”

100

Would you then care to list the other laws you wouldn’t mind breaking if they were an inconvenience?
I notice that quite a few people like to bring up the 2nd Amendment(or rather, their conception of what it means) when they talk about individual gun rights. Or are they hiding behind the 2nd Amendment? Let’s find out.

What If…The Supreme Court finally rules on the main issue-Is it the purpose of the 2nd Amendmendment to secure gun rights to individuals, or to secure gun rights to organized state militias, and the end result is that the purpose is to arm state militias to defend themselves?

Given that is the job of the Supreme Court to make these decisions when if comes to matters of Consitutional Rights, do you:

A. Put the guns away
B. Join up with the state militias that are going to spring up
C. Say “I don’t care what the law is! I’m going underground!”
D. Leave the country

Keep in mind that choices A. and B. still leave the option to do the Democratic Thing and try to organize a Constitutional Convention for a little re-write of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, you have that option now.

Y’know, it amazes me sometimes that people can get so worked about a right that, even if finally cleared up to everyone’s satisfaction, is chaotic and unpredictable at best, and massively deadly at worst, when a right that, when everyone uses it, is guaranteed to work.
In fact the more you use this right, the less possible unwanted repression is.

The right to vote.