Right to Bear Arms useless?

[Nathan F]

Bwahahah, Wonderful, Shep, our plan of mass insomnia is WORKING!

[Darth Wong]

Observation > Theory

In Iraq, they had the right to bear arms. Fat lot of good it did them against Saddam's regime.

[Nathan F]

Observation > Theory

In Iraq, they had the right to bear arms. Fat lot of good it did them against Saddam's regime.

Yeah, this is also Saddam's regime. A bit different than one that might come to power in the US. Also, Iraq is a heckuva lot smaller than the US. It would be much harder for someone to take this sort of power in the US, and the way the power structure is, it would be hard for someone to single handedly eliminate all opposition.

Also, these guys might be weilding old Mauser rifles and a few rusty AK-47s, and I doubt that gun ownership was very widespread among the Iraqi people.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, this is also Saddam's regime. A bit different than one that might come to power in the US. Also, Iraq is a heckuva lot smaller than the US. It would be much harder for someone to take this sort of power in the US, and the way the power structure is, it would be hard for someone to single handedly eliminate all opposition.

All of which is irrelevant to the question of whether a civilian populace can realistically prevent totalitarianism via their small-arms fire. Such claims are based on a number of noteworthy but wildly inaccurate assumptions, such as:

1) Everyone will fight (in reality, totalitarian governments sweep into power because they're popular for some reason, and almost nobody fights until it's too late)

2) It's just as easy to shoot a soldier as a paper target or a deer (I'm told that it's a lot harder to keep your cool when the target is shooting back at you, and I see no reason to doubt this claim).

Also, these guys might be weilding old Mauser rifles and a few rusty AK-47s, and I doubt that gun ownership was very widespread among the Iraqi people.

You would be wrong. Gun ownership was very widespread. I say again: observation > theory.

[Nathan F]

Yeah, this is also Saddam's regime. A bit different than one that might come to power in the US. Also, Iraq is a heckuva lot smaller than the US. It would be much harder for someone to take this sort of power in the US, and the way the power structure is, it would be hard for someone to single handedly eliminate all opposition.

All of which is irrelevant to the question of whether a civilian populace can realistically prevent totalitarianism via their small-arms fire. Such claims are based on a number of noteworthy but wildly inaccurate assumptions, such as:

1) Everyone will fight (in reality, totalitarian governments sweep into power because they're popular for some reason, and almost nobody fights until it's too late)

2) It's just as easy to shoot a soldier as a paper target or a deer (I'm told that it's a lot harder to keep your cool when the target is shooting back at you, and I see no reason to doubt this claim).

If you actually took the time to read up on some infantry tactics, then you would know that guerilla warfare would be necessary in this case. Hell, read through this thread and you will see what we mean. You would fight by 'hit and run' tactics. Hide, shoot, then run away. Use tactics.

Also, these guys might be weilding old Mauser rifles and a few rusty AK-47s, and I doubt that gun ownership was very widespread among the Iraqi people.

You would be wrong. Gun ownership was very widespread. I say again: observation > theory.

Show me some numbers. From what I have observed in newscasts and the such, it isn't. Show me reason to believe otherwise.

[Darth Wong]

If you actually took the time to read up on some infantry tactics, then you would know that guerilla warfare would be necessary in this case.

Thank you Mr. Obvious. If you took the time to engage your brain, you would realize that a man with a wife and children cannot realistically behave like a soldier in enemy territory. Small detail you missed in your oversimplistic conceptualization of the confrontation.

Hell, read through this thread and you will see what we mean. You would fight by 'hit and run' tactics. Hide, shoot, then run away. Use tactics.

Tactics which leave your wife and kids dead? Brilliant. People are far less likely to take risks when they have something to protect; that's something that wet-behind-the-ears youngsters like yourself tend not to realize. Trust me, MOST PEOPLE WILL SIT ON THEIR HANDS and hope that someone else does the fighting for them.

Show me some numbers. From what I have observed in newscasts and the such, it isn't. Show me reason to believe otherwise.

The fact that the US Army felt that gun ownership was rampant and conducted large-scale operations to seize all of these privately owned weapons apparently doesn't sway you, eh? If I can't produce hard figures, then you win by default? Puh-lease.

[Howedar]

Observation > Theory

In Iraq, they had the right to bear arms. Fat lot of good it did them against Saddam's regime.

I think its kinda assumed that the US Army would not gas the population.

Recall that the Iraqis did revolt in some cases, and IIRC they were even temporarily successful sometimes. Thats until Saddam had entire cities slaughtered, of course.

[Darth Wong]

Observation > Theory

In Iraq, they had the right to bear arms. Fat lot of good it did them against Saddam's regime.

I think its kinda assumed that the US Army would not gas the population.

Recall that the Iraqis did revolt in some cases, and IIRC they were even temporarily successful sometimes. Thats until Saddam had entire cities slaughtered, of course.

Those revolts were ethnically motivated. No one rose up for "freedom".

[MKSheppard]

Recall that the Iraqis did revolt in some cases, and IIRC they were even temporarily successful sometimes. Thats until Saddam had entire cities slaughtered, of course.

He wasnt't totally successful. Basra for example, was the scene of
sporadic bombings and shootings against saddamites for years
after the 1991 Gulf War

[Durandal]

I don't really have a problem with the right to bear arms. I think it's a little naive to do it for the purpose of preventing totalitarianism, though. I just can't see the government getting that bad that a significant portion of the populace see it as their responsibility to start waging guerrilla warfare against the military.

But if people want to buy guns for that reason, great, fine, whatever. I'd really only get a gun for recreational purposes. It'd be nice to let off some steam by going to the shooting range for an hour or so. I have to admit that I've always had a fascination with guns and warfare weaponry. When I was eight year old, my parents would always buy me books about different aircraft used in the military, mostly the fighter jets. I blame my dad for showing me Top Gun at an early age.

[Nathan F]

If you actually took the time to read up on some infantry tactics, then you would know that guerilla warfare would be necessary in this case.

Thank you Mr. Obvious. If you took the time to engage your brain, you would realize that a man with a wife and children cannot realistically behave like a soldier in enemy territory. Small detail you missed in your oversimplistic conceptualization of the confrontation.

Oh? Really? You would be surprised what a band of armed citizens could do to disrupt a military. Think of the various resistance forces during WW2. And then we have the fact that alot of SOLDIERS have wives and children, what makes their case any different from that of a citizen fighting against an oppressive government?

Hell, read through this thread and you will see what we mean. You would fight by 'hit and run' tactics. Hide, shoot, then run away. Use tactics.

Tactics which leave your wife and kids dead? Brilliant. People are far less likely to take risks when they have something to protect; that's something that wet-behind-the-ears youngsters like yourself tend not to realize. Trust me, MOST PEOPLE WILL SIT ON THEIR HANDS and hope that someone else does the fighting for them.

Most people will, you are right, but then again, alot of people won't. And why would you leave your wife and kids dead? Hide them. There are plenty of places to hole up in this country where you could stay, comfortably, for years.

Show me some numbers. From what I have observed in newscasts and the such, it isn't. Show me reason to believe otherwise.

The fact that the US Army felt that gun ownership was rampant and conducted large-scale operations to seize all of these privately owned weapons apparently doesn't sway you, eh? If I can't produce hard figures, then you win by default? Puh-lease.

You are the one always wanking over hard figures, not me. Or is that only when it fits your argument? Yeah, they were seizing privately owned weapons, mainly those that had been stashed by loyalists to Saddam recently. This just proves my point that a military considers an armed citizenry a possible threat. Thanks for helping me along, there.

[Darth Wong]

Oh? Really? You would be surprised what a band of armed citizens could do to disrupt a military. Think of the various resistance forces during WW2.

You mean the ones that needed an army to come and defeat the Nazis?

And then we have the fact that alot of SOLDIERS have wives and children, what makes their case any different from that of a citizen fighting against an oppressive government?

You can't really be this dense. Hint: the soldiers don't bring their wives and children onto the battlefield with them, nor do they have to seriously worry about direct reprisals against them as a result of their actions.

Most people will, you are right, but then again, alot of people won't. And why would you leave your wife and kids dead? Hide them. There are plenty of places to hole up in this country where you could stay, comfortably, for years.

Easy to say. Hard to do, unless the oppressive government is so unremittingly awful that they can't live their lives. Let's suppose your lives are still basically comfortable under the dictatorship (this is not that unusual; people in Iraq remarked that life was OK under Saddam as long as you kept your mouth shut). Are you really going to put your wife and kids into hiding and then become a guerilla fighter? The number of people participating in this campaign is going to be small.

You are the one always wanking over hard figures, not me. Or is that only when it fits your argument?

Are you suggesting that the US (and British) Army conducted these raids to seize nothing, just because I can't pin a number on the weapons? Fallacies of syllogism seem to be popular with you.

Numbers trump a lack of numbers, but since YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EITHER, you're just blowing hot air and sophistry.

Yeah, they were seizing privately owned weapons, mainly those that had been stashed by loyalists to Saddam recently. This just proves my point that a military considers an armed citizenry a possible threat. Thanks for helping me along, there.

Present your evidence that they were only seizing weapons from Saddam loyalists, since that's not what the newspeople said.

[MKSheppard]

You mean the ones that needed an army to come and defeat the Nazis?

Anti-Partisan activities tied up over ten divisions regularly in
Russia - that's 100,000 troops, not something to sneeze at.

[Darth Wong]

You mean the ones that needed an army to come and defeat the Nazis?

Anti-Partisan activities tied up over ten divisions regularly in
Russia - that's 100,000 troops, not something to sneeze at.

And did they WIN with no military support? It seems to me that you're missing the point. The people who claim that the right to bear arms would PREVENT something are not saying that it would just create an expensive nuisance for that thing after the fact. They are saying it would actually PREVENT the situation in the first place.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Easy to say. Hard to do, unless the oppressive government is so unremittingly awful that they can't live their lives. Let's suppose your lives are still basically comfortable under the dictatorship (this is not that unusual; people in Iraq remarked that life was OK under Saddam as long as you kept your mouth shut). Are you really going to put your wife and kids into hiding and then become a guerilla fighter? The number of people participating in this campaign is going to be small.

Thank you. Most people will not fight if the oppresive goverment has a habit of killing your relatives if you get caught. If I knew resisting might get my neice killed or tortured I certainly would not risk that. I hate seeing her with a runny nose, let along the horrible things a regime would do to her. Oh yeah, they would make you watch before they cut your throat.

[MKSheppard]

And did they WIN with no military support? It seems to me that you're missing the point.

The largest partisan operation in history commenced right before the
Battle of Kursk, and it really fucked over the German supply lines. It's
kinda hard to keep your divisions supplied when a bunch of people
hiding in the woods just blew up your main rail line into southern Russia.

[Darth Wong]

And did they WIN with no military support? It seems to me that you're missing the point.

The largest partisan operation in history commenced right before the
Battle of Kursk, and it really fucked over the German supply lines. It's
kinda hard to keep your divisions supplied when a bunch of people
hiding in the woods just blew up your main rail line into southern Russia.

And what would that have accomplished if the Germany army was not actually fighting against another military at the time? Jack squat, that's what. I reiterate: totalitarianism cannot be prevented by private citizens with rifles.

PS. tell me, did these partisans keep Stalin in check once the war was over? No? There you go.

[Stravo]

The point has to be raised, has an armed citizenry stopped a modern day tyrant from doing whatever he wished? In the USSR, In Vietnam, in Africa, etc. I can't think of a single instance where a tyrnanical government has been stopped by an armed citizenry.

The fact is that this argument stems from the historical roots of the Second Amendment. Partly because the founders knew that part of the reason the country won its freedom was beacuse of the minutemen and the state militias. By letting people have weapons they could form up these militias. Others have added that this also helps the citizens from resisting a tyranical government.

The argument is that now that we have a modern military with high explosives, armored vehicles, helicopter and air support that an armed citizenry has little or no effect on a government that decides to oppress its people, particularly if that government has popular support.

[Darth Wong]

I think the argument might have worked better in the era of the Founding Fathers, but even then, I was under the impression that it was made with more of a view toward defending the union from outside aggressors than starting a civil war every time you disagree with the government.

[Glocksman]

I think the argument might have worked better in the era of the Founding Fathers, but even then, I was under the impression that it was made with more of a view toward defending the union from outside aggressors than starting a civil war every time you disagree with the government.

It was presented in the Federalist Papers by Hamilton precisely in the way Mike suggests, but there's more to it.


From the Federalist#29

"The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties, of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

It seems that the fear at the time was more about the standing army staging a coup rather than the elected government becoming a tyranny.

If we were to hold today to the ideas outlined in the Federalist and expressed in the 2nd amendment, the first thing we need to do is strike down the 1934 NFA, GCA 68, and the soon to expire AWB. To obtain that "large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms", those citizens would need to be armed with personal weapons of the kind in current military use. In other words, M16's, HK MP5's, etc.


However, just as important as having the firepower is having the will to fight the tyranny. If you lack the will to fight, having enough personal firepower to equip the 82md Airborne won't make any difference.

Could 50 million gunowners defeat the US military if it decided to stage a coup? Perhaps, perhaps not. But we could make this fucking country ungovernable.

[Durandal]

I think the argument might have worked better in the era of the Founding Fathers, but even then, I was under the impression that it was made with more of a view toward defending the union from outside aggressors than starting a civil war every time you disagree with the government.

The Second Amendment gave states the right to build and maintain their own militias. That was the context under which the right to bear arms was granted. These militias have evolved into the National Guard.

[Glocksman]

I think the argument might have worked better in the era of the Founding Fathers, but even then, I was under the impression that it was made with more of a view toward defending the union from outside aggressors than starting a civil war every time you disagree with the government.

The Second Amendment gave states the right to build and maintain their own militias. That was the context under which the right to bear arms was granted. These militias have evolved into the National Guard.

Not true.

Here is an excellent history of the 2nd and the right to bear arms.

This is the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Emerson case. Skip the case itself (unless you're interested in it) and go down to the discussion section where Judge Garwood details the history and meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Judge Parker's separate concurrence is interesting and he brings up some points that Garwood failed to make.

Be warned, it's a very long read.[/url]

[Rubberanvil]

Anyone have a good estimate of just how many retired military personnal who are still combat capable (age early 20s to early 40s)?

Also isn't there a provision on what to do deal with them?

[Nathan F]

Oh? Really? You would be surprised what a band of armed citizens could do to disrupt a military. Think of the various resistance forces during WW2.

You mean the ones that needed an army to come and defeat the Nazis?

Yep, same ones that were putting a real pin in the Nazis collective ass in the occupied countries.

And then we have the fact that alot of SOLDIERS have wives and children, what makes their case any different from that of a citizen fighting against an oppressive government?

You can't really be this dense. Hint: the soldiers don't bring their wives and children onto the battlefield with them, nor do they have to seriously worry about direct reprisals against them as a result of their actions.

Are you so dense as to not see what I am saying? Hint: The resistances don't bring their families along with them into the battle, they do it in sort of a state of anonymity. You don't advertise that you are a resistance fighter.

Most people will, you are right, but then again, alot of people won't. And why would you leave your wife and kids dead? Hide them. There are plenty of places to hole up in this country where you could stay, comfortably, for years.

Easy to say. Hard to do, unless the oppressive government is so unremittingly awful that they can't live their lives. Let's suppose your lives are still basically comfortable under the dictatorship (this is not that unusual; people in Iraq remarked that life was OK under Saddam as long as you kept your mouth shut). Are you really going to put your wife and kids into hiding and then become a guerilla fighter? The number of people participating in this campaign is going to be small.

You are missing the entire point (whether it is accidental or intentional, I don't know). You see, you don't take up arms unless it get's REALLY bad, as in, Nazi Germany bad. As in, your lives are actually in danger by living under this government.

You are the one always wanking over hard figures, not me. Or is that only when it fits your argument?

Are you suggesting that the US (and British) Army conducted these raids to seize nothing, just because I can't pin a number on the weapons? Fallacies of syllogism seem to be popular with you.

Numbers trump a lack of numbers, but since YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EITHER, you're just blowing hot air and sophistry.

Hypocritical selective thinking seems to be popular with you. Read below.

Present your evidence that they were only seizing weapons from Saddam loyalists, since that's not what the newspeople said.

My evidence is that, seeing as though they are seizing arms, the military sees this to be an actual THREAT. Would they seize arms if the civilians holding these arms didn't present a threat against them or the stability of the nation? No. What makes you think that a semi-organized resistance using the weaponry now available in the US as compared to that available in Iraq would be less of a threat? You keep on proving my point with this statement.