Guns

[Florestan]

Highly disagree, these "ultra-sophisticated" methods are ineffectual.  The Taliban has mostly retaken Afghanistan back, and since we are the invaders they are the resistance.

You misunderstood me (or maybe I wasn't very explicit). I was talking about Western governments and their citizens.

[DavidW]

You misunderstood me (or maybe I wasn't very explicit). I was talking about Western governments and their citizens.

Nice try but you said "any government on the face of the Earth".  But that's just one example, the governments don't control us, this 1984 nonsense just doesn't fly in the face of reality.

[Florestan]

But the governments don't control us, this 1984 nonsense just doesn't fly in the face of reality.

Then you must be living in a parallel reality. Happy you! 

[Florestan]

But that's just one example

And a completely irrelevant at that, for two reasons.

First, the Taliban are not ordinary, law-abiding citizens whose lawful ownership and responsible use of guns supposedly deter their government from infringing upon their rights. They are a standing army composed of full-time warriors who couldn't care less about civil rights, civil society or democratic government.

Second, the Afghan government is very far from having access to, and making use of, the sophisticated expertise and technology available to the US government.

My point is that the US citizens, or any other Western nation citizens, are so fully domesticated and controlled that a nation-wide armed rebellion or resistance against a perceived menace to liberty is very unlikely to take place. To take the specific case of US, for all your gun ownership the powers of the central government have been expanding since the Civil War at a pace and to an extent which make poor king George III look like a paragon of restraint and liberality, yet this trend continues and develops opposed only by words, not by swords.

Of course, it's your right to believe that US are immune to becoming one day a full-fledge dictatorship because its people carry guns and are so enamored of liberty as to use them in a well organized and coordinated nation-wide resistance. I just don't think this is the case anymore.

[DavidW]

And a completely irrelevant at that, for two reasons.

First, the Taliban are not ordinary, law-abiding citizens whose lawful ownership and responsible use of guns supposedly deter their government from infringing upon their rights. They are a standing army composed of full-time warriors who couldn't care less about civil rights, civil society or democratic government.

So what?  Irrelevant.

Second, the Afghan government is very far from having access to, and making use of, the sophisticated expertise and technology available to the US government.

The US military has a presence there, that's the whole point.  If you say not enough of a presence there, you still undermine your point.

My point is that the US citizens, or any other Western nation citizens, are so fully domesticated and controlled that a nation-wide armed rebellion or resistance against a perceived menace to liberty is very unlikely to take place.

That is speculation only, you have no idea what would happen if liberty was actually threatened.  Living in a democratic republic, that has not been a concern.

To take the specific case of US, for all your gun ownership the powers of the central government have been expanding since the Civil War at a pace and to an extent which make poor king George III look like a paragon of restraint and liberality, yet this trend continues and develops opposed only by words, not by swords.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the specific point we were debating.

Of course, it's your right to believe that US are immune to becoming one day a full-fledge dictatorship because its people carry guns and are so enamored of liberty as to use them in a well organized and coordinated nation-wide resistance. I just don't think this is the case anymore.

It is my right, and you must be a freaking lunatic to think that the US is on it's way to becoming a dictatorship.  Have you seen the debate just on healthcare reform?  How much crack are you smoking?  The US is about as far from establishing a fascist regime as you can get.  And this has nothing to do with guns, you're just getting very weird.

[Florestan]

It is my right, and you must be a freaking lunatic to think that the US is on it's way to becoming a dictatorship. 

I don't remember writing anything of the sort. You seem to have very serious reading comprehension problems.

The US is about as far from establishing a fascist regime as you can get. 

Yes it is (with the correction that there are not only fascist dictatorships, but also socialist ones) but this was never my point. I repeat it, maybe this time you'll understand: no country in the world is immune to the potential threat of a dictatorship, whichever nature it has, just because its citizens carry guns. Capisci now?

[DavidW]

no country in the world is immune to the potential threat of a dictatorship, whichever nature it has, just because its citizens carry guns. Capisci now?

Irrelevant.  Don't confuse necessary with sufficient.

[Florestan]

Don't confuse necessary with sufficient.

Look, it's far from me to believe that US are on a pathway to dictatorship. But, and I trust you'll agree, the powers that the central government has today are of such a nature that, judging them by the standards of the Founding Fathers (which is what prompted me to write in the first place: those outdated quotes about people preserving their liberty arms in hands), they far exceed the original design and, by the same standards (not by ours, mind you!) could be interpretted as an ever enlarging encroachment upon personal liberty. Today not only the US citizens, but every citizen of the Western world takes for granted and acquiesces to forms of control and surveillance which to the 18th century style liberals would have seemed abhorrent, such as taxes, compulsory military service, compulsory state-sponsored education, biometric ID cards and passports etc. The standards have evolved and to think that the 18th century political philosophy and general ethos of the people are still relevant today is a mistake.

[karlhenning]

. . . judging them by the standards of the Founding Fathers (which is what prompted me to write in the first place: those outdated quotes about people preserving their liberty arms in hands)

I was distressed to see this point of yours get lost in the givet-&-take.  As Gurn also indicated, the Bill of Rights isn't quite the slam-dunk for the pro-gun lobby that large swaths of said lobby take for granted.

There's a big disconnect between "Jesus gave me my guns" and the Founding Fathers.

[DavidW]

I was distressed to see this point of yours get lost in the givet-&-take.  As Gurn also indicated, the Bill of Rights isn't quite the slam-dunk for the pro-gun lobby that large swaths of said lobby take for granted.

There's a big disconnect between "Jesus gave me my guns" and the Founding Fathers.

But the difference is that Gurn was pointing out the literal interpretation doesn't support pro-gun movements, Florestan's point is subversive since it borders on dismissing the constitution altogether as outdated and inappropriate in our modern age.  Those are actually completely different attitudes!

[karlhenning]

I won't have my Founding Fathers dismissed! 

[MN Dave]

Pistol Packin' Mama by Al Dexter, 1943

Drinkin' beer in a cabaret And I was havin' fun!
Until one night she caught me right, And now I'm on the run

Lay that pistol down Babe, Lay that pistol down,
Pistol Packin' Mama, Lay that pistol down.

She kicked out my windshield, She hit me over the head,
She cussed and cried, and said I lied, And I wished that I was dead.

Lay that pistol down Babe, Lay that pistol down,
Pistol Packin' Mama, Lay that pistol down.

Drinkin' beer in a cabaret, And dancing with a blonde,
Until one night she shot out the light, Bang! That blonde was gone.

Lay that pistol down Babe, Lay that pistol down,
Pistol Packin' Mama, Lay that pistol down.

I'll see you every night Babe, I'll woo you every day,
I'll be your regular Daddy, If you'll put that gun away.

Lay that pistol down Babe, Lay that pistol down,
Pistol Packin' Mama, Lay that pistol down.
Lay that pistol down Babe, Lay that pistol down,
Pistol Packin' Mama, Lay that pistol down.

Now down there was old Al Dexter, He always had his fun,
But with some lead. she shot him dead, His Honkin' days are done.

Recorded in 1943 by Al Dexter, an ol' East Texas boy from Troup.

[Gurn Blanston]

I can see Troup from my front porch...

[MN Dave]

I can see Troup from my front porch...

Ever read Joe R. Landsdale?

[Gurn Blanston]

Ever read Joe R. Landsdale?

Sure. I've met him. He lives/lived right here in Nacogdoches. Seemed cool enough, for a sci-fi-guy.

[MN Dave]

Sure. I've met him. He lives/lived right here in Nacogdoches. Seemed cool enough, for a sci-fi-guy.

Sf guy? Read his mysteries and thrillers, dude.

[drogulus]

My point is that the US citizens, or any other Western nation citizens, are so fully domesticated and controlled that a nation-wide armed rebellion or resistance against a perceived menace to liberty is very unlikely to take place. To take the specific case of US, for all your gun ownership the powers of the central government have been expanding since the Civil War at a pace and to an extent which make poor king George III look like a paragon of restraint and liberality, yet this trend continues and develops opposed only by words, not by swords.

     The problem with this is the a priori that "fully domesticated and controlled" explains why citizens of democratic countries change governments by voting and other nonviolent means instead of the obviously preferable violent revolution. This means control is of the Chomskian "manufactured consent" type popular with Marxists and the Keanu Reeves fanclub. I liked The Matrix, too, but I think it was a science fiction film. Also, the notion that everyone is controlled but me looks a little too much like the notorious solution to the "problem of other minds" that philosophers groove on. That solution is that everyone but me is a zombie. 

[Florestan]

Florestan's point is subversive since it borders on dismissing the constitution altogether as outdated and inappropriate in our modern age.  Those are actually completely different attitudes!

Last time I checked the US constitution was about much more than gun ownership. I clearly stated that what is outdated and inappropriate in our modern age is the romantic, 18th century-ish notion that people are so much in love with liberty that they are at any time prepared and willing to defend it arms in hands and therefore owning guns is a prerequisite of a free society. This is simply not true. UK, Germany or Italy strictly regulate gun ownership and use and the vast majority of their citizens don't have any gun --- does this make those countries less free than the US? Does this make them more likely to succumb to dictatorships than US?

Now, take these two quotes (once again, it is they I take issue with, not the US constitution, for God's sake!):

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.  The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
- Noah Webster


"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
- Richard Henry Lee

Pray tell, what is their relevance in the contemporary Western world?

     The problem with this is the a priori that "fully domesticated and controlled" explains why citizens of democratic countries change governments by voting and other nonviolent means instead of the obviously preferable violent revolution.

Good point and completely in line with my thinking. It is not gun ownership that prevents governments from becoming tyrannical but the general evolution of social and political mores and manners towards a peaceful, negotiable and civil settlement of society. The pillars of liberty are not rifles or pistols but reason, justice and morality and if these are vanishing (I'm not implying they are --- at least not yet), no amount of guns in the hands of people will ever save them from tyranny.

I liked The Matrix, too, but I think it was a science fiction film.

I've never watched it.

the notion that everyone is controlled but me

I don't entertain such a notion. We are all controlled and I don't see this as a bad thing a priori since a certain degree of control is necessary for liberty to survive.

[WI Dan]

Our obsession isn't with guns, CNut.  Our obsession is with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". 

Our forefathers fought against a tyrannical government (in the Revolutionary War) in order to secure those things for themselves, for their families, and for future generations of Americans.  We, as a nation, are greatly in their debt, and we aim to hold on to those liberties.  An unarmed citizenry can not realistically hope to do that.



"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson


“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.  The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
- Noah Webster


"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour."
- George Washington


"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..."
- John Adams


"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
- Richard Henry Lee

These are fine words but unfortunately they are outdated. Do you really think that, with today's ultra-sophisticated means of control, surveillance and coercion, is there any government on the face of the Earth, US included, that really fear a bunch of armed citizens bent on resistance?

Of course.  All governments fear an armed citizenry, ... and with good reason.

The concept is explained in ..... THIS ARTICLE.



By the way, you omitted two of the quotes from my earlier post, above. 
This was one of them:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

I don't believe that one is outdated, either.  Do you?

[Florestan]

By the way, you omitted two of the quotes from my earlier post, above.  
This was one of them:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

I don't believe that one is outdated, either.  Do you?

I don't either, but that one is not specifically related to guns.

Of course.  All governments fear an armed citizenry, ... and with good reason.

The concept is explained in ..... THIS ARTICLE.

I have a question for you, if I may: since the vast majority of citizens don't own any guns, what prevents the Dutch or French or Norwegian government from becoming tyrannical?