Worshipping at the National Rifle Assn altar

[kishnevi]

That is more wishful thinking than reality. Prior to the fifteenth century no Western European State had a standing army, yet governmental opression and foreign adventures were the norm rather than the exception. 

In large part because the populace did not have arms to counter the force available to the ruling class.
The idea of the citizen army as a counter to government oppression was first enunciated by Machiavelli in his Commentaries on Livy, I think.

[Florestan]

In large part because the populace did not have arms to counter the force available to the ruling class.

Granted, but the moment one allows the populace to arm, another question arises: who can guarantee that the either the ruling class as a whole will not deceive the self-same populace into lending it their force for suppressing dissent or engaging in foreign adventures, or that different factions of the ruling class will not do the same thing with the populace, or parts thereof, thus making them their instruments for gaining and retaining power? History is full of such examples.

[kishnevi]

Granted, but the moment one allows the populace to arm, another question arises: who can guarantee that the either the ruling class as a whole will not deceive the self-same populace into lending it their force for suppressing dissent or engaging in foreign adventures, or that different factions of the ruling class will not do the same thing with the populace, or parts thereof, thus making them their instruments for gaining and retaining power? History is full of such examples.

Ideally, the citizenry is the ruling class.
More realistically, armed citizenry makes the process you describe both more difficult and less tyrannical.

[Ken B]

Except that the events of 1688 were neither glorious, nor a revolution (incidentally, Tom Paine has a few words about it in "Rights of Man"), while Magna Charta was no Constitution at all, unless by this term one understands the "rights" that an army of barons forced a feeble king to grant them.

Yesterday you seemed to object to my criticizing Burke, today you seem to subscribe to the Whig history myths...

That you of all people should lay down this insinuation at my door is quite frankly disappointing, to say the least. But I can live with that and we can still be friends.

I'm not insinuating. I'm pointing out how absurd your claim is Andrei.
Governments are constrained by three things: force, law, and convention. You don't support the force argument obviously. Yet here you are decrying both law -- established constitutions -- and convention -- respect for them.  You would would leave nothing to constrain government.

Pause for a second and notice. You have Todd, Gurn, Neal, and me all agreeing!  Most of the time we don't even agree on the day of the week.

[Gurn Blanston]

Pause for a second and notice. You have Todd, Gurn, Neal, and me all agreeing!  Most of the time we don't even agree on the day of the week.

Hell of a thing to point out on a Tuesday.... 

[The new erato]

An armed populace to constrain the government is a concept so foreign to me that I cannot even grasp it, and signifies a view of government totally belonging (to me) in a time and climate I cannot even imagine. And a view of how conflicts are resolved that I totally abhor. But perhaps I just have been living in a peaceful and sheltered society for too long.

[Jo498]

I have no idea how the US constitution and amendments are to be interpreted.
But if the "spirit", not the letter is relevant, one could point out two things. Firstly, a "well regulated militia" would be compatible with rather restrictive arms rights that would be likely to avoid accidental shootings by or of two year olds. E.g. one may keep arms privately but only after passing some test, the arms have to be locked up in one's home etc. If the call for forming the militia comes, everybody can get his rifle out of his secure locker etc. No carrying in handbags where toddlers can reach them.

Secondly, as said above, a modern army is not very likely to be efficiently countered by a few dozen vigilants with handguns. So an effective militia would have to be allowed at least tanks and helicopters (preferably nukes...?) to become a force to be reckoned with. So apparently the goal of restricting government by force is not furthered by the current situation. (edit: One could argue that, to the contrary, the police is forced into an arms race and a tendency to preventive lethal force because they have to expect well-armed criminals, even in cases of petty crime. So the current situation leads to a MORE coercive and restrictive state than would be the case with stricter gun laws.)

(In any case I have to agree with Erato that the idea to "restrict" the government through arms-bearing citizen sounds really very odd to me. One of the central ideas of government since early modernity seemed to be the "monopoly of force". The citizens yield (most of) their force to the government which in turn provides internal (police, law enforcement) and external (defense) safety. The government is held in check by laws and a balance of power between the different governmental institutions.
Otherwise we could go back to earlier ages with local feuds and vendettas among armed citizens being frequent occurences.)

[The new erato]

If the call for forming the militia comes, everybody can get his rifle out of his secure locker etc. No carrying in handbags where toddlers can reach them.

Just like the Home Guard in Norway (or, as far as I understand, the mobilization army in Switzerland) do.

[Ken B]

I have no idea how the US constitution and amendments are to be interpreted.
But if the "spirit", not the letter is relevant, one could point out two things. Firstly, a "well regulated militia" would be compatible with rather restrictive arms rights that would be likely to avoid accidental shootings by or of two year olds. E.g. one may keep arms privately but only after passing some test, the arms have to be locked up in one's home etc. If the call for forming the militia comes, everybody can get his rifle out of his secure locker etc. No carrying in handbags where toddlers can reach them.

Secondly, as said above, a modern army is not very likely to be efficiently countered by a few dozen vigilants with handguns. So an effective militia would have to be allowed at least tanks and helicopters (preferably nukes...?) to become a force to be reckoned with. So apparently the goal of restricting government by force is not furthered by the current situation. (edit: One could argue that, to the contrary, the police is forced into an arms race and a tendency to preventive lethal force because they have to expect well-armed criminals, even in cases of petty crime. So the current situation leads to a MORE coercive and restrictive state than would be the case with stricter gun laws.)

(In any case I have to agree with Erato that the idea to "restrict" the government through arms-bearing citizen sounds really very odd to me. One of the central ideas of government since early modernity seemed to be the "monopoly of force". The citizens yield (most of) their force to the government which in turn provides internal (police, law enforcement) and external (defense) safety. The government is held in check by laws and a balance of power between the different governmental institutions.
Otherwise we could go back to earlier ages with local feuds and vendettas among armed citizens being frequent occurences.)

As for the more restrictive point. It's not the gun laws, it's the guns. Banning guns does not remove the guns. The horse has fled the barn on the ubiquity of guns in America.  The world would be a better place if no-one believed in god too, but passing laws against it is still a bad idea.

As for private feuds, yes. Look into anarcho-capitalists, who sincerely believe a return to "private law" would be a good thing. (They are totally wrong but do have some interesting arguments that they push past the breaking point.) (They are extreme type 2 libertarians if you were part of that discussion.)

[Florestan]

I'm not insinuating. I'm pointing out how absurd your claim is Andrei.

Actually, I claimed nothing. I retorted with exaggerated rhetoric to the exaggerated rhetoric of Todd. Yet exaggeration aside, I stand by the main implication: Constitutions are not eternal; sooner or later they become obsolete either partially or wholly, just like everything under the Sun which is made by man. Whether this is the case now with the US, I don´t know, probably not. But I have no doubt that a time will come when changes will be made, and that among the first issues to be reckoned with will be gun ownership. That you or I or Todd may not live long enough to witness it is probably, but irrelevant. And the changes will be made not on the orders of a party chairman, but by the democratically elected representatives of the people expressly charged with the task, just as the Constitution was drafted, debated and voted for the first time --- actually, much more democratically than back then, since next time women and non-Whites will have their say, too.

Governments are constrained by three things: force, law, and convention. You don't support the force argument obviously. Yet here you are decrying both law -- established constitutions -- and convention -- respect for them.  You would would leave nothing to constrain government.

Interesting that you should put first the force. It might have been true --- indeed it was --- in times when civilization was still in its infancy, or not fully developed. We have come a long way since then. Today, any government that needs be restrained by force testifies to a yet uncivilized society; when civilization will mature there, too, then a government restrained only by law and convention will be the only government needed and known of.

You might wish to entertain the fantasy myth that it is people owning guns that prevented the constitutional US government from being, or becoming, tyrannical --- but pause for a second to consider three things, and answer three questions, if you please.

1. The constitutional government of Norway, established in 1809, was not from its inception, and never became afterwards, tyrannical, despite the fact that gun ownership was much more limited and restricted than in the US.  Granted, it might have overstepped its limits now and then, it might have even acted for a while against popular sentiment, or oppose for a while popularly supported and demanded reforms (just as the US government did) --- but tyrannical it never was, nor contemplated to be, save for the brief German occupation, when other forces and influences were at play than the Constitution and the laws of the country. How do you explain it?

2. The gun owning citizens of the US, as a whole, were much worse armed and much less trained than the Mexican or the Spanish Army, yet this obvious fact did not hinder the US government to wage aggressive wars against Mexico and Spain. Would you seriously maintain that a government which did not refrain from expanding its dominion by fighting professional armies, would have refrained from fighting vigilantes if it really wished to expand its powers?

3. What value, more than the paper it is printed on, can a Constitution have, whose application and keeping is ultimately conditioned by the strength of the armed force supporting it? The moment the government becomes stronger armed than the citizens --- and this always was, is and will be the case of any government, whether established by force or by consent --- that Constitution is doomed; unless, of course, the ruling class --- and there always was, is and will be a ruling class in any government, whether established by force or by consent --- is committed on principle not to break it beyond the threshold which marks the beginning of tyranny and the end of liberty.

Pause for a second and notice. You have Todd, Gurn, Neal, and me all agreeing!  Most of the time we don't even agree on the day of the week.

Your agreement, far from being any assurance, is on the contrary highly disturbing for me: I am suspicious of majorities on principle, but circumstantial majorities I directly abhor... 

[The new erato]

The horse has fled the barn on the ubiquity of guns in America.  The world would be a better place if no-one believed in god too, but passing laws against it is still a bad idea.

Probably right on both points.

[Moonfish]

The horse has fled the barn on the ubiquity of guns in America.  The world would be a better place if no-one believed in god too, but passing laws against it is still a bad idea.

Non sequitur!

[Ken B]

Non sequitur!

Sequitur. You excised the link.  I stated the problem  with gun control is the ubiquity of guns. "Banning guns does not remove guns." New gun laws will no more  rid the country of guns than banning religion will rid the country of religion, desirable as that might be.

[Florestan]

the problem  with gun control is the ubiquity of guns.

The problem with slavery was the ubiquity of slaves and slave-owners. Solved.

The problem with aristocratic and ecclesiastical privileges was the ubiquity of titles and tithes. Solved.

The problem with smallpox was the ubiquity of epidemias. Solved.

[NorthNYMark]

It's rare that I agree with Florestan, but I am finding his arguments here fairly persuasive.

[ibanezmonster]

The problem with slavery was the ubiquity of slaves and slave-owners. Solved.

The problem with aristocratic and ecclesiastical privileges was the ubiquity of titles and tithes. Solved.

The problem with smallpox was the ubiquity of epidemias. Solved.

And to take guns away, the government would literally have to go to people's houses and try to take their property... I don't quite see that happening, especially in the south. That's why the ubiquity of guns will never be solved. Not quite the same as in those cases- maybe owning slaves was slightly comparable because they were considered property, but that's about it.

And like I said before, the gun problem will never be solved when you can 3D print guns.

[Ken B]

And to take guns away, the government would literally have to go to people's houses and try to take their property... I don't quite see that happening, especially in the south. That's why the ubiquity of guns will never be solved. Not quite the same as in those cases- maybe owning slaves was slightly comparable because they were considered property, but that's about it.

And like I said before, the gun problem will never be solved when you can 3D print guns.

And American slavery was abolished so peacefully too.

This is what is wrong with Florestan's "examples": none was just a matter of passing a few laws. But that is precisely what he is disputing. I agree with Andrei that exiling all the guns owners might work too, to anticipate his next argument.  Send them to Liberia?

[ibanezmonster]

I agree with Andrei that exiling all the guns owners might work too, to anticipate his next argument.  Send them to Liberia?

Considering how many people here would die before handing over their gun to the government, that would result in a mini-genocide.

[Mirror Image]

I thought this picture was appropriate for this thread:

[EigenUser]

I thought this picture was appropriate for this thread:

I was going to post this early on, but I didn't want to seem like an insensitive jerk since the origin of the thread does concern a loss of life. It seems that no one really remembers that now, so I'll post it: