Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[UristMcChladni]

You're pretty sure people who disagree with you are gullible law abiding citizens.

Fixed that for you.

Really, you think that the solution to a stable democracy is an armed populace that is completely antagonistic towards the government and opposes any law that don't personally benefit them?

[Shazbot]

Hey look, a ridiculous absolute being presented as a restatement of my opinion.

The way constitutional republics operate is the protection of individual rights against the tyranny of the majority and the private ownership of firearms protects those minorities.

Reelya, you did that thing again. I am discussing that specific scenario with Trekkin, who thinks suppression of an armed citizen's uprising in America is plausible. I am rebutting multiple people and asserting it is implausible, as is a general confiscation by your implication.

But we have already had one "correlation does not equal causation" rebuttal of concealed carry not being tied to the diminishing crime rate, so what does the decline of hunting have to do with this?

The drop in the number of Americans who own a gun or live in a household with one is probably linked to a decline in the popularity of hunting, from 32 percent who said they lived in a household with at least one hunter in 1977 to less than half that number saying so now.

Or is someone going to tell me less hunting rifles = less murder? Nah, probably just iPhone ownership.

Anyway, I'm tired and I need to get home to do some woodworking. I'm building a tree-house using timber framing techniques. I don't think these conversations are as productive as we'd all like but I hope it stirs some thought.

[UristMcChladni]

The way constitutional republics operate is the protection of individual rights against the tyranny of the majority and the private ownership of firearms protects those minorities.

The only right that gun owners seem to consistently threaten to use guns to defend is that same right to have guns. So yeah, it might make it hard to take them away. But it doesn't seem to support minority rights like gay marriage, promote equal rights for racial minorities, or anything like that.

So give me some concrete actions you believe would be acceptable. Lets say you're concerned with immigrants rights, and you see border control agents as taking children from their families, etc. Can you gun them down? Or if you perceive the police as an antagonistic force in your community that levels particularly brutal punishment against racial minorities? Are they fair game?

You're suggesting a right not only to possess arms, but a right to use them. Who against?

[Dunamisdeos]

I don't think its a stretch to hypothesize that less interest in hunting means less guns in a home and therefore less interest in firearms. I think that a community with an emphasis on hunting would have a greater interest in owning firearms in general, and that therefore less interest in hunting across the board would lower the general interest in owning firearms.

I not sure it would have a dramatic effect, but it's hardly a far-fetched concept.

I also agree that a militia of armed citizens has no chance whatsoever against a modern military force that is unsupported by outside means. I don't think that anyone, anywhere, for any reason, would provide outside support to a US militia that is violently opposing a government that is (whether it is their actual evil motive or no) trying to reduce the number of owned firearms to match those levels in other countries.

[Reelya]

Yup, also it's definitely wrong to look at the example of Iraq or Afghanistan for how something like that would play out, too. A non-local occupation is markedly different to a home-grown uprising. This gun-owners uprising is very likely to be a rural thing and big cities probably won't be joining in. Big cities provide a ton of recruits too.

Also note that much of US wealth and power is tied up in corporations. And those corporations are almost certainly going to throw their lot in with the government than the rebels, so you'll have private forces backing the government armies. Whatever the government did to piss you guys off, you can be sure that the corporations and media already signed off on it.

[misko27]

I just don't understand what armed insurrection achieves that, say, a general strike wouldn't, besides infinitely more bloodshed.

The way constitutional republics operate is the protection of individual rights against the tyranny of the majority and the private ownership of firearms protects those minorities.

Ok, but the way democracies work is empowering the majority as opposed to an interested minority, and protecting the many from the powerful few. While "Powerful Few" is usually read to mean "rich" or "politically influential" (or in non-republics, the aristocracy), it also applies to "the heavily armed." A democratic government's job is to protect the people from individuals, and whether they are robber barons or just plain robbers is irrelevant. Now, any real government should want to balance majority rule and minority rights. But "armed insurrection" is armed insurrection, regardless of whether its to preserve or destroy liberty, to stop tyranny or justice.

who thinks suppression of an armed citizen's uprising in America is plausible.

I do too, but even if I didn't, I'm going to second Reelya: why is an armed minority necessarily in the interests of the unarmed majority? You're basically saying "hey unarmed people. Want protection from this armed minority (police)? Here are an armed minority (private citizens)!" But if the whole point of police was to protect us, and that failed, why would armed randos necessarily have the unarmed majority's interest in mind when our own government didn't? That just seems like a coin-toss, and at that point, "The devil you know" seems like enough justification to support the government. Or to rephrase entirely: you are arguing specific instances of injustice justify the existence of a permanent possibility of armed opposition. I am arguing the potential existence of armed opposition is a threat not just to unjust democracies or governments, but to all democracies and governments. To democracy in general.

My argument is simple: What about private ownership of guns, as it exists in America, is necessarily a check on government tyranny and not government in general? Because if it merely a check on government in general, it might be worth remembering that there is such a thing as government by the people, of the people, and for the people... while I am distinctly unconvinced at the historical track record of privileged minorities (such as, say, the armed) in making decisions for everyone else.



Also, today is super primary Tuesday, so results are coming in there. Lot of results though, not so many super important individual races, so I don't know what to make of it. Quick, someone, think for me!

[nenjin]

Funny thing: talking to some folks from Alaska who live in Barrow, i.e as far north as you can get while still being in the US.

The nearest local law enforcement is about 4 days away by plane.

They don't own guns.

If people living in the absolute farthest reach of the US, with no one to look out for them except themselves, don't feel the need for guns.......it makes me look askance at the guy who owns three AR-15s because he needs to "defend himself because there's no local law enforcement."

Of course, plenty of people in Alaska do have guns because polar bears are real and dangerous. As are wolves and the occasional belligerent moose.

But it makes the argument for "we need these guns to protect ourselves/our crops/our whatever" in the lower 48 a lot less reasonable to me. I don't fault someone living in the middle of fucking no where on a tundra the right to bear arms. I do fault someone though that lives in the suburbs with a police force, neighbors, family, animal control and all the things that normally mean you don't need to be armed to the teeth.

why would armed randos necessarily have the unarmed majority's interest in mind when our own government didn't?

Because this is America, and everyone assumes they know what's best for them/their family/their neighborhood/their state/their party/their country. Of course people believe they can do a better job at enforcing "law" (whatever they decide that means) than someone professionally trained to do it. (And given the Abusive Policing Thread, can you fault them?)

To me though it's the same thing as beer-bellied rednecks who have sold truck parts their entire lives saying that doctors, scientists and climatologists are all wrong. Despite having nothing else to go on than their gut feeling and maybe some ear garbage from talk radio.

[Trekkin]

Reelya, you did that thing again. I am discussing that specific scenario with Trekkin, who thinks suppression of an armed citizen's uprising in America is plausible. I am rebutting multiple people and asserting it is implausible, as is a general confiscation by your implication.

Not quite my point, but close. Implicit in the assertion that civilian arms are required to defend the population against tyranny and therefore worth the negative effects of widespread gun ownership are two assertions:

1. That an attempt to impose tyranny on the population via a process amenable to armed response is sufficiently plausible to warrant defense against it at the cost of a generally armed population.
2. That the citizenry being armed will determine the success of that attempt.

If (1) is not the case, then there's no threat to guard against with guns and therefore no reason to continue guarding against it with guns. Thus why I've asked twice what you think the hypothetical tyrants want from you that they can't get except by sending shootable people to take it from you. (2) supposes that an armed citizenry is better at uprising than an unarmed one, which I don't think anyone is actually arguing but is important to the next point: that the hypothetical imposition of tyranny can be repelled by an armed citizenry but not a disarmed one. It's like triage; if we can't repel the tyranny either way, guns won't make a difference, and if we can repel it either way they're superfluous, and neither case is an argument for having the guns. 

Thus far, you have suggested (or rather, I am doubtless mistaken in thinking that you suggested) that the military would be unwilling to invade its own country and that the resultant differences in willingness to do so could lead to internal conflicts. Well and good, but also irrelevant, unless you're suggesting the military's unwillingness to destroy their countrymen is somehow contingent upon them having guns. I simply don't see what you're proposing the citizenry must do to repulse tyranny that they can only do with legally owned guns but are otherwise capable of doing.

So I ask you again: What do you have that is worth taking, and why are guns the best or only way to stop your oppressors taking it?

[Reelya]

Yeah, the hard part to explain isn't in fact the fighting part, but the scenario that lead to people wanting to fight.

For example, if the federal government abolished the minimum wage, would gun-owners revolt? No. They've already destroyed labor unions, and no revolt, and they've shipped jobs overseas and no revolt. They could overturn the constitution - revoke the 14th amendment, thus foreign children born in the USA would not become citizens. And they could overturn anti-discrimination laws and overturn the 1st amendment so they can pass laws banning Islam and other non-allowed religions, while putting 10 commandment plaques on every federal building. They could enforce anti-flag-burning laws and abolish civil rights legislation.

None of this is going to irk the gun owners even one bit, because they'll just clap and cheer as each change is enacted. This is how tyranny creeps in - with clapping and cheering from a heavily-armed reactionary base of supporters, with corporate chiefs nodding happily in the corner. All power-grabs require supporters.

The alternate version, which would be a complete "socialist takeover" that would irk the gun owners enough to start shooting everyone, that's virtually impossible in the USA, because the power-base is corporate wealth. To do it from within the power structure would require that the corporations agree to whatever is being enacted, so "going commie" from within the power structure would basically make no sense. It would revert to the right-wing takeover in this scenario, because that's how these things work.

If there was a hostile left-wing takeover, it has to come from the grassroots itself, i.e a civil uprising that defeated the military then imposes a socialist regime, overturning the constitution, and implicitly having defeated the military themselves. Since there's no way the military is on-board for this.

[Dunamisdeos]

And they could overturn anti-discrimination laws and overturn the 1st amendment so they can pass laws banning Islam and other non-allowed religions, while putting 10 commandment plaques on every federal building. They could enforce anti-flag-burning laws and abolish civil rights legislation.

I uh, think it's a bit disingenuous there to claim that all gun owners would cheer for those reasons. There are lots and plenty of gun owners that would be horrified at those things.

"Gun owner" does not equate to "Alt-Right caricature".

However, the overarching theme of why a militia of randos would be better than the existing police is a sound line of thought.

[Reelya]

Maybe I should have clarified that as the theoretical subset of gun owners who plan to rise up shooting in response to tyranny. I can't see many of those people being on board with the gay rights movement or the Dream Act.

Rick Santorum and others for example refer to same sex marriage laws as "tyrannical". So I can only guess that this is the sort of thing that gets their blood boiling and that they plan to rise up against.

[Dunamisdeos]

Yeah I mean, regardless, that drives home the point that a militia will rise up to defend their own interests and their own interests alone, which if I understand you is the point you are making there.

[sluissa]

Maybe I should have clarified that as the theoretical subset of gun owners who plan to rise up shooting in response to tyranny. I can't see many of those people being on board with the gay rights movement or the Dream Act.

Rick Santorum and others for example refer to same sex marriage laws as "tyrannical". So I can only guess that this is the sort of thing that gets their blood boiling and that they plan to rise up against.

How about you just acknowledge that painting 100 million people with a single brush just isn't going to work out well.

[UristMcChladni]

Maybe I should have clarified that as the theoretical subset of gun owners who plan to rise up shooting in response to tyranny. I can't see many of those people being on board with the gay rights movement or the Dream Act.

Rick Santorum and others for example refer to same sex marriage laws as "tyrannical". So I can only guess that this is the sort of thing that gets their blood boiling and that they plan to rise up against.

How about you just acknowledge that painting 100 million people with a single brush just isn't going to work out well.

So long as gun ownership does in fact coincide with political belief, it will be a poor way to maintain a democracy. There are more republicans with guns than democrats, and that fact alone creates a scenario where the will of the people could be interpreted as tyrannical by an armed minority. That undermines our democracy, it doesn't support it.

[Trekkin]

Maybe I should have clarified that as the theoretical subset of gun owners who plan to rise up shooting in response to tyranny. I can't see many of those people being on board with the gay rights movement or the Dream Act.

Rick Santorum and others for example refer to same sex marriage laws as "tyrannical". So I can only guess that this is the sort of thing that gets their blood boiling and that they plan to rise up against.

It's not always the same subset, though. That's the thing that the numbers miss: gun owners are not a hive mind. They may outnumber the soldiers or the cops eighty to one, but that doesn't mean that they're going to group up into 81-person firefights. Maybe only 1% of them decide to have their insurrection that day, so they're outnumbered. Maybe a lot of them do, but they're all bunkered down in separate locations with no way to coordinate, so they're still individually outnumbered. Maybe, on top of all that, they too are vulnerable to internal divisions, having already taken exception to one group of armed people with a different interpretation of their rights and responsibilities under the law and being now unwilling to tolerate another.

So, yes, it sounds unlikely that one force can defeat another eighty times its size. It is considerably more plausible that the same force might defeat another a tenth its size eight hundred times, and one side in this hypothetical conflict already has the logistical capacity to make that happen, a defined structure for making decisions about how to make it happen, and the ability to coordinate everyone acting in concert.