nacht, on 18 December 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:
You are wrong! What did tanks do in Afghanistan?
The stronger the tyranny, the stronger is the resistance.
But you make an excellent point for supporting the individual right of a man/woman to support himself/herself. If there is no balance, the tyranny will grow and they very threat of a potential backlash is enough to keep it in check.
I agree that the ideal approach would be for nobody to have guns but that will only come from a mental attitude that abjures all violence AND the desire to steal. Alas human nature does not make this possible.
OK, so, let's put this in perspective. Tanks in Afghanistan made it impossible for the opposing forces to fight in the open, forcing them to guerilla combat. Which, btw, primarily worked because the people in question were fucking good at living in caves and tunnels.
Tanks in the streets of New York, however...
And more to the point; who the fuck needs tanks? The pinnacle of American "force projection" is the aircraft carrier - and the ability to deploy missiles and bombs anywhere in the world rapidly and in large volumes. Trust me, if the US government goes postal on its own people, literal GUNS will be the absolute LEAST of your concerns. Because they can literally rain death upon the population from OVER THE FUCKING HORIZON, and there is NOTHING any person, even under the 2nd Amendment, can produce that will stop that from happening. And when you've been decimated or worse by this unbeatable bombardment (because unlike the Taliban, you don't have very handy tunnels and caves to hide in), THEN the tanks roll out, and the Army, Marines, special forces, and National Guard (who apparently are all fascists, just waiting to turn on their own people without a fuss) can go in and clean the crazy-prepared survivalist types out of the mountains.
...at what point in your scenario does the ability to hold a gun help you here, except at the end, where you're facing one of the world's largest military forces with no actual preparation or experience fighting them in tiny pockets of resistance, and HOW DOES THAT DIFFER FROM THE FRENCH RESISTANCE OR ANY OTHER RESISTANCE MOVEMENT WHICH MANAGED TO ARM THEMSELVES AFTER THE DICTATORSHIP TOOK OVER?
Also, your fundamental position that without a check to power tyranny will grow is pretty much shat all over by every decent developed country in the world right now - and even when one of those falls to Tyranny, not though unchecked power but through the (unwitting) will of the populace because the to-be-Tyrant promises food and wealth in a time of darkness and despair, the REST of the fucking world will come and save them. Internal resistance movements will be praised, and possibly even effective, but they won't be the source of the nation's salvation. And seriously, the crazy survivalist people in the States would kill more of their own citizens than government forces.
nacht, on 18 December 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:
*snip*My little knowledge about Nazi Germany is that there was a resistance which got crushed by the armed Nazi state.
See my last paragraph above. The Nazis took power WITHOUT guns, by and large. Did they form mobs and beat up opposition? Sure. Did they intimidate? Of course. But did they shoot their way to power? Not really, no. In fact, they got ELECTED. And the propaganda was so persuasive and the misinformation so comprehensive, and the situation they were in was already "so bad", that most people were happy with it to start. Most people went along with it. Most people "didn't see" the people being taken away and rounded up and shipped off to concentration and death camps.
You know who did try and kill Hitler? People within the military. Mostly after Germany started losing, I grant, but still. The average citizen could have done stuff all against the Nazi war machine. Even if they were allowed to own guns, you do realize that 99% of the German population would not have had the money to buy guns or ammo by the time the Nazis took power, right? You do realize that those guns would have done little against a Panzer tank, even if the people did have ammo? The German military would have kicked the shit out of their population in a matter of months. Same as would happen to a US resistance force against the US military. Because there is a huge disparity in numbers, and weapons. And no, you can't own a fucking tank "just in case". THAT IS PARANOID.
And moreover, you need trained crews to run a tank. You can't just hop in one and go off on a campaign against the 1st Armored Div, you know? Because if you could, I would be even more against the average US citizen having a "right" to one. Because if one man can kill 27 people with one assault rifle...what the fuck could one do with a tank that is single-person operated? Good lord.
nacht, on 18 December 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:
Quote
It's only a "fundamental right" in the USA. The rest of the planet doesn't see things that way. We are the example. How can you possibly ignore that? Sure there are tyrants, but arming citizens during peace time is NEVER the answer. It worked once in all US history and that was in the 17th century, and those guys were....Hey! An organized militia...and it was during Hey! A war.
So let me get this straight.
You want to disarm them and then when "somebody" decides that shit has goes too far; that is when we should arm them again...
Tyranny might never happen in the US or in the Canada but will you never need something until you need it... (and hopefully it is not too late)
OK. This is what I mean about arms race mentality. You do realize you are talking about engaging in a Cold War style situation WITH YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT?! The government has guns, therefore we *need* guns! The government has tanks, therefore we *need* tanks! The government has jets, therefore we *need* jets! The government has inter-continental ballistic missiles, therefore we *need* inter-continental ballistic missiles! The government has nukes, therefore
we need nukes! You know, just in case. >.>
That is the line of reasoning you are proposing here. That is the logical extrapolation of "we need guns in case our government decides to become a tyranny". Can you honestly say that is reasonable? That it is sane? Does the rest of the world look like it is so overrun with tyrannical dictatorships that you look out there and you see a NEED for this kind of "fundamental right"? Really?
Just to make sure we've got this straight, and all.
And pretty much, yes. Nobody should have a "right to bear arms"; they should be able to buy guns for recreation, for hunting, but not "just because". The population should not have almost as many guns as there are people circulating in the market. Most people do not need guns. Yes, most people should not have guns UNTIL the tyrannical dictator has taken power. Because that's how the rest of the world works and we for the most part get along fine without the guns and still don't have tyrants.
I will grant you that the US political system is fucked up. I will grant you that the average US voter seems to vote for some very strange policies. But honestly, none of that gives support to the 2nd Amendment. Which I honestly feel we should probably start renaming the "Legitimises Massacres" Amendment. Because that's about all it is good for.
Help
