what should we do when they come for our guns?

Great Debates
121

WAE replied to me: *Let me restate my question: Can you conceive of any law which, if passed, would be so onerous that you would feel morally compelled to actively resist it, said active resistance possibly including violence? *

Not off the top of my head. There are plenty of potential onerous laws that I would resist via civil disobedience, but it would take a lot more than property confiscation for me to feel myself justified in resisting with violence.

*“I suspect that quite a few people who commit crimes with guns think of themselves as essentially moral people who are still abiding by what is morally right even when they break the law…”

I don’t understand this at all. Are you suggesting that people who commit crimes with guns, as in, say, your two examples above, have a greater tendency to morally rationalize their crimes as those who commit similar crimes but don’t use guns? *

No.

*“I don’t think that sort of taking the law into one’s own hands is a good idea.”

This also doesn’t make sense. The individuals in your examples are breaking the law.*

“Taking the law into one’s own hands” is an idiomatic expression that means taking upon oneself the responsibility of administering what one believes to be justice because one believes that the legally constituted authorities cannot or will not do so. It generally, although not always, implies a sort of “vigilante justice” whose actions are themselves illegal. So yes, somebody can indeed be breaking the law when they “take the law into their own hands.”

122

erislover, my friend, thank you for explaining. I can be dense at times, I do not know why. It must be the beer…yes… :wink:

I do agree with you here.

OK, I see now. That puts it all into perspective, and I have to agree with your analogy here.

I agree with you here too - the RKBA at its heart is not about duck hunting or target shooting.

Yes, and it upsets me greatly that we as a people are not allowed to even vote on several key issues. A representative Government is good of course, but some issues are so important and directly impacting on you and me that I really wish that we were the ones deciding them, not the repreentatives. So this too is a flaw in the system along the lines of what you are saying - that in some fundamental issues our representative form of Government has too much ability and temptation to be out of control, and overstep its bounds.

Yes, thank you very much for taking the time to explain. I understand what you mean now.

So as the original question I guess, now that I understand the context in which it is being asked - would I stand as idly by if the First Amendment, or any other, was in peril? Well…hmm. I don’t have an answer for you at this time, and I don’t know why. It seems that my answer should be the same for any Amendment in peril or that has been usurped, and yet…it is not. I need to look hard at my value system on this subject and find out why I view things differently. If our Government tried to crack down hard on us and abolished free speech, free press, right of assembly, and there was any actual movement or indication of resistance to that…I would definitely support it and join it.

Of course, if they got rid of the Second Amendment first, then we might have no practical way to resist anyhow…hmm…that is a good point. I need to do some thinking, and see if I can justify my position. The more I think about it, the less I like the conclusions that I am coming to about my actions. Maybe someone can tell me why I shouldn’t resist actively in this case?

And I’m not being facetious here. I’m honestly trying to think through this, and see if my first answer in this thread is right or not. I’m not 100% certain anymore. :frowning:

123

OK. I’ve read the California statute. I assume it is in fact a statute passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor and otherwise in full force and effect. It’s pretty broad. It looks as if the objective is to keep big magazine, concealable, semiautomatics with the potential to be fully automatic weapons and designed for off the shoulder operation, out of the state. Is that any more onerous or less reasonable than my state’s prohibition on sawed off long arms, or silencers or big bore guns? Probably not. Can you get a weapon that will accomplish the same thing as, for instance an AK-47, and has similar ballistics and semiautomatic rare of fire, that is not on the restricted list? I don’t see why not. Does California have the power to do this? Unless there is something in the California Constitution, the answer is yes. As mentioned before, there is nothing in the Second Amendment that restricts State regulation of firearms within the State. Is it a good idea for California to do this? I can see it both ways, but it is a political decision. What firearms are going to be tolerated in California is a matter for Californians to decide through the political process. If there are enough people who see the California statute as an unacceptable interference then it will be repealed.

With regard to hunting with offensive weapons, I have had the chance to hunt deer with a fully automatic M-16. It is an experience. A three round burst will drive them out of cover. For rail road rabbits a sawed of 12 gage with No. 6 shot works just fine.

124

sigh

I assume you are referring to me, Guinastasia. Please reread my post and point out to me exactly where I said that “Hitler banned guns”.

In fact, I knew then and know now that the Weimar Republic introduced gun control in Germany. This fact would seem, on its face, to support the view of those who believe that gun control laws are a precursor to greater tyranny, and as such I am surprised that you brought it up.

Honestly, I don’t quite get your “chess clock” analogy, no.

I also don’t understand this at all:

I think understand this:

It sounds to me like you are referring to the amendment process, in which case I certainly don’t agree…this is hardly something that can be done on a whim. Or were you referring to judicial activism?

I understand this:

But again do not agree. Anthracite provided some good anecdotal examples. I have seen polls showing how poorly informed voters are…many do not even know the name of their own representative, and other basic information. I can dig up cites if you wish.

As to this:

Above you said that the fact that the system can modify itself was a flaw. Now you seem to be bemoaning the fact that it hasn’t done so. I don’t understand. And if you think that the methods used to have the citizens interact with their government ought to be changed, I would be curious to hear how, though in another thread.

125

But its NOT about property confiscation. It’s about removing our ability to resist.

Have you ever read any articles about what you should do if you are mugged (assume you don’t have a gun). They all say, correctly, that you should han over your wallet and other valubles. Its stupid to struggle and get hurt over mere money. However, they also say that you never get into a vehicle with the mugger and you should definitely struggle and scream to avoid that. Why? Because then he has taken away your power to resist and you are at his mercy.

126

Well. Do let me know if you ever think of anything. In the meantime I will simply note that the country in which I live was founded on violent resistance to actions that were not a lot more than property confiscation, the actions of the caricatured “nazi redcoats” in Hollywood’s version of the American Revolution, The Patriot, notwithstanding.

So what were you trying to say, exactly?

127

RKBA = right to keep and bear arms

128

Are you serious? If so - what State is this legal in? :confused:

129

Deer hunting with an automatic assault rifle.

In no State is that lawful to my knowledge. You may think, however, that something like that may sometimes happen on the remote back ranges of some Army post in the Midwest. Same with going after rabbits with a birdshot load in a sawed off. There will be no more said about this.

130

Whew, keep. For some reason I couldn’t put a word there. Thanks :slight_smile:

Al

Oh, a government should have fluidity to it for sure. My opinion is that a government’s structure should not be completely fluid.

The Bill of Rights outlines rights which are seemingly fundamental… my problem is that they are not fundamental. I agree that both philosophically and practically “rights” are a concept which are understood only in the context of a government or other organizational construct, but what I don’t understand is why we would want the ability to change those rights.

Also, if you had been following the UN Debt thread at all you’d see something I pointed out there: it isn’t just the populus which is misinformed, it is also out representatives! I think we are long overdue for a more direct democracy in many ways. As you say, though… another thread.

Changing how a government operates or how its citizens interact with it are not really problematic for me; it is the “fundamental” rights which I find most important.

Consider, then, a mathematical problem. Math comes wih rules, theorems, axioms, all manner of methods to manipulate and transpose numbers, variables, and so on. But it doesn’t tell you what to do with it, see? Only the person weilding the math-- existing outside the system-- is in control. I do not feel that the government should be in charge, ultimately, of balancing its own power. I think that is a dreadful error, and if we remove citizens’ rights to resist government action we’ve really screwed ourselves.

If you work within the system you are limited by the system. Always and forever. And any system which allows itself to be changed in all ways has the potential to be “invincible” from within its own construct. Ever see Dark City? Attacking politics with politics in a hostile situation is trying to leave the city and find Shell Beach.

There is little need to revolt in today’s society. As it stands, we still can utilize the system to our advantage. Given the hypothetical situation this thread supposes, however, I feel that the time to work within the system is over; after armed resistence is removed, all the student demonstrators in the world won’t stop a tank.

With the second amendment interpreted as RKBA, the citizens of the US government allow it to govern us as we want. Without it, we can only hope it governs us as we want.

There are 100 senators and something like 450 house members. In order to completely mutilate the constitution it takes a 2/3 majority, plus the president (as I understand it). That is, you need to convince a mere 351 (or so, there are actually 435 house reps, but 450 is a nice round number) people. You don’t need to ever, ever, ever take it to the people, we don’t vote on that stuff.

351 people. You live your life at the whim of these people. Should they all happen to agree on something, it is a law.

131

Yes, but also 3/4 of the State legislatures have to approve it as well - and this is a somewhat taller order. We can see an example of how the States can block an Amendment by looking at the fate of the Equal Rights Amendement, which had significant support at first that eroded as time went on, and it did not gather the votes in the State legislatures to become part of the Constitution.

132

Well, true true. I admit I didn’t go read my copy of the Constitutition before making that comment. However, what we still have here are an absurdly small percentage of people deciding the fate of the rest of us.

So-- yeah, no point in pretending that when I said “whim” that it wasn’t a bit of hyperbole.

133

kalashnikov replied to me: *“There are plenty of potential onerous laws that I would resist via civil disobedience, but it would take a lot more than property confiscation for me to feel myself justified in resisting with violence.”

But its NOT about property confiscation. It’s about removing our ability to resist.*

Here’s where I agree with many other posters on both sides of the gun-control debate: the idea that personal firearm possession, especially of the relatively restricted kind that is now permitted, will provide effective “resistance” against truly tyrannical government action is a fantasy. We’re not living in the eighteenth century any more, and legal weapons in private possession are not remotely comparable to the armaments of the current military. There are lots of reasons why I’m not in favor of imposing truly draconian gun bans (e.g., the OP’s suggestion that you wouldn’t be allowed to own a handgun of any kind). But my reasons do not include the idea that such weapons are an important part of our “ability to resist” government tyranny, because I think that’s pretty much bull.

WAE: *In the meantime I will simply note that the country in which I live was founded on violent resistance to actions that were not a lot more than property confiscation […] *

Which is one of the reasons that the Constitution was written to embody a governmental structure that would make such actions much more difficult. Still, if you wish to reserve to yourself the potential right to join in an independence movement to secede from the US via armed rebellion, you’re welcome to do so. Of course, that means that before you actually resort to violence, you and your confederates should repeatedly attempt every possible means of getting your grievances addressed legally, and if that still fails you should issue an internationally publicized declaration of independence. Individuals shooting police officers, on the other hand, simply because the officers are required by a democratically established law to confiscate firearms, doesn’t really seem to me to be politically or ethically comparable to the American Revolution.

*Are you suggesting that people who commit crimes with guns, as in, say, your two examples above, have a greater tendency to morally rationalize their crimes as those who commit similar crimes but don’t use guns?

“No.”

So what were you trying to say, exactly?*

Exactly what I did say: “I suspect that quite a few people who commit crimes with guns think of themselves as essentially moral people who are still abiding by what is morally right even when they break the law.” I really don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that. Please reread my exchanges with UncleBeer on this subject on this thread, and then if you still have specific questions about some particular point(s) you think I was unclear on, I will be happy to try to answer them.

134

And here is that thread.

Kimstu, et al, RE: fantasy land

I think that is incorrect. Because of the style of democracy we have now, having a truly tyrannical government is going to be pretty difficult to pull off without a series of “lucky” events which would allow police actions, National Emergency declaration, and so on, where we can go ahead and temporarily suspend the niceties of our current everyday existence.

But that doesn’t make smaller tyrranical efforts unheard of, and smaller efforts of resistence would be effective.

Consider such a scenario like Kent State, but with some armed resistence as a response the the National Guard moving in. Then more National guard members are called in, and more momentum builds on the armed resistence side. What do you propose will happen next? Small army task forces moving in and eliminating the resistence, wiping out media records of the affair? The CIA coming in and cleaning all evidence of resistence, spreading its own “created” news releases?

Sorry, Kimstu, I will agree that the need for armed resistence is unlikely, but I think it is clear which side is relying on black helicopters to clean the streets.

135

erl: *But that doesn’t make smaller tyrranical efforts unheard of, and smaller efforts of resistence would be effective.

Consider such a scenario like Kent State, but with some armed resistence as a response the the National Guard moving in. Then more National guard members are called in, and more momentum builds on the armed resistence side. What do you propose will happen next? Small army task forces moving in and eliminating the resistence, wiping out media records of the affair? The CIA coming in and cleaning all evidence of resistence, spreading its own “created” news releases? *

And this is supposed to illustrate the potential effectiveness of armed “efforts of resistance”?!? Compare these projections to what actually happened:

Four students were killed and nine wounded by members of the Ohio National Guard firing into a crowd of protestors which had previously been throwing rocks at them, but from which they had subsequently retreated, apparently successfully and in good order. The Guardsmen who fired into the crowd may have believed that they were at risk of immediate and dangerous attack by the unarmed students, or they may not. There was no armed response, and attempts at unarmed violent response on the part of enraged demonstrators were quelled by the intervention of unarmed faculty marshals. Outrage at the shootings spread rapidly across the campus, the nation, and the world, and the events are still famous more than 30 years later, even among many people who were not even born at the time. The very name “Kent State” still serves as a warning to enforcement officials of the hazards of escalating violence in patrolling demonstrations. AFAIK no fatalities have occurred in conflicts between police and student protestors in the U.S. ever since.

Sounds as though the response to Kent State was actually pretty damn effective in discrediting and discouraging tyrannical action. I fail to see how armed resistance would have improved it. The fact that the government would doubtless be just as likely as, if not more likely than, the armed resistors to employ brutal measures does not mean that armed resistance is therefore a good idea.

136

No, it was supposed to say “If the black helicopter fits, wear it.”

137

Well, thanks for clearing that up. :confused:

138

Physical force can resolve a situation: fact.

Physical force is not the only way to resolve a situation: fact.

Armed resistence has been a viable method of changing governments or government policies when no other method was working: fact.

Many times the armed resistence itself could have been successfuly dominated by force available to the imposing party: fact.

The previous fact not withstanding, armed resistence is a big shock to an institution who feels they could otherwise get away with anything (and hence the need for armed resistence in the first place): probably a fact, but never having sat in on Pentagon meetings or other historical groups which had war logistics as their primary concern, I can’t really say more.

To say that armed resistence is a pipe dream because “the army is too strong” or “people wouldn’t do that” is blatently ignoring almost every revolution and coup de etat in history.

It is patently rejecting what huge groups of “passive” demonstrators implicitly state by being there in the first place: we’re pissed.

We, as a nation, hemisphere, culture, or civilization, are not above or beyond history.

139

erl: *To say that armed resistence is a pipe dream because “the army is too strong” or “people wouldn’t do that” is blatently ignoring almost every revolution and coup de etat in history. *

Ah, I see. But that’s not really true. Revolutions and coups d’etat don’t always succeed, you know; some instances of armed resistance are effective and some are not, depending on a mix of factors that includes the strength of the army. To say that armed resistance wouldn’t be helpful in such-and-such a case is not the same thing as saying that there’s no case in which it has succeeded.

All I’m saying is that I am very skeptical that armed resistance would really be an effective tool against government tyranny in the modern US. On the contrary, situations like Kent State seem to indicate that widely-publicized outrage without violent retaliation are much more effective than armed resistance would be.

140

Well, I’m not expecting to change your mind. Gun control advocates remove certain weapons and provisions from us, and then explain “well you can’t really defend yourself anyway; and besides its much more effective for a tank to run you over or a national guardsman to kill you than it is to defend yourself.”

Excuse me if I don’t share your enthusiasm for that methodology.

[sub]and if i am sounding like as much of an asshole as I think I am, please excuse me for that, too, I’m merely being blunt in stating my opinion [/sub]