The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 25, 2009, 08:12 AM   #26
Kleinzeit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 562
Quote:
But given the climate of our democracy and the pursuits of some that when you give in to one point, they then use that as the new standard from which to erode more points.
The thing that gets me worried at this point is that this description of the state of democracy could be applied equally to both sides of politics. Under the previous administration, many supported what others saw as the erosion of civil liberties. Now the situation and sides are reversed and the complaint is essentially the same. So, when people take up arms against the person they think is a tyrant, they are probably taking up arms against their neighbor, as well. This is why I, too, put my faith in democratic institutions and the rule of law.
Kleinzeit is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 09:14 AM   #27
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,942
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
While I agree that right to arms alone does not make a population free, it goes a long way towards it.

No it doesn't really make you free just powerful which leads to..
True enough, arms alone doesn't make one free. However, if the population is armed and therefore powerful, they are more difficult and therefore less likely to be oppressed.


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
most of the atrocities that we see committed in the third world, we find that it's typically one segment of the population that is well armed dominating or killing another segment that, for whatever reason, has inferior weapons or is totally unarmed.

This is not freedom in action but rather power being exercised over another group. In Rwanda the Tutsi first had the power oppressed the Hutu who later took over and massacred the Tutsi. Arms just provided the means to do it.
That's actually an illustration of my point, the side that was better armed was able to massacre the side that was not. Had both sides been armed equally well, I suspect the outcome may have been quite different.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
it would seem that the police officers and soldiers, regardless of Castro's wishes, would have been more reluctant to carry out their heinous acts in Cuba if they feared resistance and/or retaliation from an armed population.

I think the Bay of Pigs proved that wrong. The people of Cuba in the majority wanted Castro and allowed him to stay in power. Otherwise the CIA plan would have worked and millions of indignent Cubans would have risen up and overthrown Castro. Didn't happen and would Cuba had been any freer after the exiles took over? I don't think you can say that webley. Isay based on the lack of said democratic ideals and foundations you might well have had another fascist dictator in Ccuba.
Since they had been disarmed before the invasion, how were the citizens in Cuba supposed to rise up and support the invasion. I don't think a bunch of people with sticks and pitchforks would have done particularly well against the Cuban army and the people probably knew this. Thusly, because the people were afraid (and rightly so) to support the invasion and because the invasion force was small and poorly supported, it failed.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
if the government became tyrannical

from ever being a reality.
Lets hope you're right

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
I contend that the case is not that we are armed because the government is not tyrannical, but rather that the government is not tyrannical in part because we are armed.

Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical. We have had instances of that. The suspension of Habeus Corpus by Lincoln, the sedition laws of WWI, the Japanese Interment in WWII. Did armed citizens stop those? Please do not cite the rural myth of the Battle of Athens
Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, WWI's sedition laws, and the Japanese internment camps were all allowed because they were deemed to be emergency measures, had they not been done away with when the percieved need for them was gone, it's difficult to say how the population would have reacted. As far as an instance of an armed population throwing off a tyrannical government, what do you call the American Revolution? An armed population rose up and threw off a tyrannical government. While the outcomes weren't as favorable as the American Revolution, the French Revolution and Bolshevik Revolutions are also examples of an armed population throwing off a tyrannical government (in those cases monarchies). The reasons that the French and Bolshevik revolutions did not have as favorable outcomes as our own is that nothing like the constitution was put in place afterwards to keep the new government from becoming tyrannical. Also, as kirpi97 pointed out, it is rather difficult to point out something that never happened because an armed population prevented it rather than revolted against it. One can see throughout history tyrannical governments first disarming and then opressing their populations. One of the first things that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did was to disarm their populations, it was only after that that the jack-booted thugs began kicking in doors with much frequency.

Quote:
We are armed today and can defend ourselves from criminals because we have a democratic government whose checks and balances have kept power diffused so that one man or party could not take over as a tyrant. Even when things got bad during the Cvil War or the Great Depression we maintained our COTUS without the use of armed citizenry.
Democratic government can still become tyrannical. The British Parliment was established well before the American Revolution, Hitler became chancellor through a democratic vote, and Mussolini came to power in a similar fashion. Also, during tough times such as the Great Depression, could it be that a majority of the population being armed prevented one segment of it from dominating the other? I agree that the right to arms alone does not guarantee freedom, but I maintain that it is one of the many components that does.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 09:37 AM   #28
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,659
Quote:
We don't have a tyrannical government because of those institutions, free press and the rule of law. Not because there is an armed minority.
This assumes that american rule of law itself does not require the general population to be allowed to arm, which is itself a dubious proposition.

More problemmatic, a view that some civil liberties are necessary to the state of american liberty while some others are superfluous is gravely flawed. It pretends a knowledge which is improbable, and as a proposition is categorically impossible.

A fellow might argue that the first amendment is superfluous and americans would still not have tyranny, reduced liberty, without it. It seems unlikely we would consider a government that denied those liberties anything but tyrannical, and each liberty is a strand in the tapestry of general liberty.

Quote:
Quote:
it would seem that the police officers and soldiers, regardless of Castro's wishes, would have been more reluctant to carry out their heinous acts in Cuba if they feared resistance and/or retaliation from an armed population.
I think the Bay of Pigs proved that wrong. The people of Cuba in the majority wanted Castro and allowed him to stay in power. Otherwise the CIA plan would have worked and millions of indignent Cubans would have risen up and overthrown Castro. Didn't happen and would Cuba had been any freer after the exiles took over? I don't think you can say that webley. Isay based on the lack of said democratic ideals and foundations you might well have had another fascist dictator in Ccuba.
Well, you've sort of shown your hand here.

I think the Bay of Pigs proved that wrong. The people of Cuba in the majority wanted Castro and allowed him to stay in power.

Whether a dicatorship is popular doesn't bear on whether it commits atrocities or whether the presence of armed resistence would temper its actions. That ascendant communists pre-emptively disarm potentially non-compliant populations indicates their view that an armed population would impede their control.

Quote:
Otherwise the CIA plan would have worked and millions of indignent Cubans would have risen up and overthrown Castro.
The idea that one poorly planned and executed invasion at one point in history is equivalent to an ongoing plebisite in favour of Castro merits ridicule.

Didn't happen and would Cuba had been any freer after the exiles took over? I don't think you can say that webley. Isay based on the lack of said democratic ideals and foundations you might well have had another fascist dictator in Ccuba.

Batista wasn't a fascist. He was vehemently opposed by the fascists. The only party that labels any and all opponents fascists? That's right. The misconception of communist party government as some sort of intermediate condition between formal constitutional liberty and tyranny is not well founded. Since cubans risking death on leaky boats and innertubes is a trait peculiar to this island prison outpost of a conspicuous tyranny as created and enforced by Castro, it can only serve to slander hose who opposed him by wondering whether they would be as grotesque.

Quote:
Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical.
You mean aside from the american insurrection? A modern example is provided by the arming of the nicaraguan people to remove communists from their political monopoly and re-introduce constitutional and representative government.

Last edited by zukiphile; February 25, 2009 at 10:07 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 10:14 AM   #29
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,836
On the counterpoint - the Iranian overthrow of the Shah and the ultimate overthrow of the Soviet system was done by a sea change in the populace. That sea change was accompanied by a refusal of the armed branches of those governments to use force against the populace.

In China, the armed forces (with troops brought from areas away from Beijing), were willing to use military force.

Since many democracies exist without an armed populace and major insurrections have occured without armed rebellion - one should be careful about generalizations. And of course, we return to the horrible conundrum that many of the most ardent supporters of the 2nd Amend. are quite ok with violating many other civil liberties.

I opine that the BOR are all equally important and simply stating that the 2nd is predominant is not a winning argument. There was no armed insurrection against slavery or the Japanese interrment.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 10:36 AM   #30
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,659
Glenn, I think fidelity to history is important if we are to make historical assertions

Quote:
On the counterpoint - the Iranian overthrow of the Shah and the ultimate overthrow of the Soviet system was done by a sea change in the populace.
Neither of these conveys the history of these events. The governing persian class, always a minority, was generally supportive of the Shah's program of modernisation, and was generally opposed to the very traditional and less urban general population. The Shah's failing health and clear signals from the US government that the Shah no longer had our support led to what amounted to his abdication. It was the Shah who never ordered a more vigorous entrenchment, not a refusal of iranian armed forces to follow orders.

Similarly, to suggest that the soviet system was a product of popular support, and that it folded when that support evanesced is ahistorical. While russian nationalism united russians during the german invasion and was generally supportive of soviet expansion, the support of the general population who were subject to a formal policy of rule by terror, is very hard to find.


None of this should indicate that popular support can't affect the course of some governments, or that armed insurrection or its threat is the first, best or only means by which a population can secure a greater degree of liberty. However, that it can and has done that seems difficult to deny.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 10:46 AM   #31
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,942
Quote:
On the counterpoint - the Iranian overthrow of the Shah and the ultimate overthrow of the Soviet system was done by a sea change in the populace. That sea change was accompanied by a refusal of the armed branches of those governments to use force against the populace.
The overthrow of the Soviet system is kind of unique in that it happened at a point in time in which that system was already crumbling under it's own weight. The Soviet economy was unable to sustain the amounts of military spending that the government was taking part in and the old hard-line communists' number were dwindling. While it is true that the armed branches of the government were unwilling to use force against the populace, so to was Gorbachev. Had such changes been tried at a different point in time, under Stalin for example, I suspect that the outcome would have been quite different. Because of the Soviet government's unwillingness to use force against their populace, it could be argued that they were at that point no longer tyrannical but just ineffective. With regards to the overthrow of the Shah, the Iranian military only declared themselves neutral after they were overwhelmed by guerillas and rebel troops so armed insurrection did occur to certain extent and it was only after the Shah lost the support of the military that a relatively peaceful transition was able to occur.

Quote:
I opine that the BOR are all equally important and simply stating that the 2nd is predominant is not a winning argument. There was no armed insurrection against slavery or the Japanese interrment.
I agree and have never been of the opinion that the Second Amendment is any more important that the rest, however I maintain that it is no less important in preventing tyranny and that is the heart of the debate. I think that the Constitution contains many safeguards against tyranny and the Bill of Rights is composed almost entirely of such safeguards (though there are others not contained in the Bill of Rights such as our system of checks and balances). I contend that while the Second Amendment is partly in place to ensure that the citizensare able to protect themselves from criminals and foreign invaders, it is also one of the many safeguards against tyranny contained in the Constitution. As to slavery and Japanese interrment, an armed insurrection against slavery was attempted by John Brown, but the outcome was similar to the bay of pigs in that the slave population did not join the rebellion. I very highly doubt that this was because they liked being slaves, but rather I suspect that they were unable to(due to the fact that they were unarmed and not organized) or simply afraid to. Japanese interrment was perpetrated against a relatively small proportion of the populace and was, at the time, supported by the majority of the population. The Japanese interrment of WWII was also a relatively short-lived event and was ended by the other safeguards against tyranny.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 10:48 AM   #32
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,836
My point was the major overturns of what were seen as tyrannical governments was accomplished without major armed insurrections. There was no support for a continuation of the Shah's government with his heirs. The armed forces wouldn't have responded to use force against the people or so I read some reports. That he didn't give a futile order begs the question.

Similarly, in the USSR - it was reported that orders to use armed force wouldn't have been successful. The armed forces were not going to try to enforce order against the populace in this case.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 11:42 AM   #33
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,942
Quote:
My point was the major overturns of what were seen as tyrannical governments was accomplished without major armed insurrections. There was no support for a continuation of the Shah's government with his heirs. The armed forces wouldn't have responded to use force against the people or so I read some reports. That he didn't give a futile order begs the question.

Similarly, in the USSR - it was reported that orders to use armed force wouldn't have been successful. The armed forces were not going to try to enforce order against the populace in this case.
Positing about the effectiveness of an order that was never given slides into speculation and doesn't really prove anything. Regardless, it's really beside the point anyway as there are many cases throughout history in which armed insurrecton was necessary to overthrow tyranny. Given that the founders had just gone through such an event, it seems clear to me that prevention of tyranny was part of their intent when they drafted the Second Amendment.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 12:26 PM   #34
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,836
A subtle point and it may start a flame war for which I apologize. My point on slavery was that the general population of slave owner states were, in general, quite OK with slavery. Their ownership of firearms and the 2nd Amend. did not automatically transfer to a respect for liberty for the slaves.

Thus, the contention that the 2nd and firearms ownership almost automatically guarantees a respect for liberty doesn't hold. Private firearms ownership can be a buffer to prevent genocide (suggested by studies that indicate that genocide occurs against the weak). But it doesn't gurantee that a firearms owning majority is necessarily a respector of liberty.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 12:29 PM   #35
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
An armed populace provides two things: protection against our government, and, protection against invaders.

Currently, we have border squabbles with Mexico based drug gangs, police, and factions of the armed forces. They are armed with automatic weapons, and, the people on those borders should have the right to respond in kind.

The Swiss government has proven the wisdom of this position. The Swiss haven't been invaded in 800 years, and, made it through two world wars and a bunch of other stuff in the last couple hundred years. Why? Shooting is their national past time.

The joke goes:
Quote:
There is a story, possibly apocryphal but awesome nonetheless, that a ranking German (possibly the Kaiser) was visiting and watching the Swiss military on their summer maneuvers. He asked the Swiss commander, "How big a force do you command?"

The Swiss general confidently replied, "I can mobilize one million men in twenty-four hours."

The German asked, "What would happen if I marched five million men in here tomorrow?"

The Swiss replied, "Each of my men will fire five shots and go home."

Note that Switzerland was not invaded during either World War, and still used an updated version of the same bolt action rifle from 1889 to 1959, and kept it in reserve service until 1980.
Imagine a government that not only allows but INSISTS its citizens keep military grade weapons. That's points right there. Even more, they hold quarterly Schuetzenfests, at which shooting, carousing and drinking are expected. And it's entirely possible you will have your ass handed to you by a 13 year old girl shooting a select-fire StG90 assault rifle that she carried to the range from school, slung across her back while pedaling her bicycle. Swiss GIRLS are better men than most allegedly-male American liberals.
The K31 packs a kick. It fires a 7.5 mm Swiss round that is expensive, because it only comes from Switzerland and it's only available in match grade. There is no non-match grade Swiss Ammo. Swiss soldiers don't miss. This is why they've never had to demonstrate the fact. Invaders fear a mountain range full of snipers. .
For this to work, as the need arises, the populace should be armed with the current state of the art weapons, just as the Swiss have upgraded.

So you have two driving points:
Primarily the intent is to protect the country from invaders. Terrorists, drug gangs, etc.
Police aren't armed for this sort of situation, and, what are the folks in Arizona going to do? Wait for an underarmed police force to come out and get shot, while they are facing drug gangs with AK 47's? Apparently it's not politically correct, nor is it Constitutionally correct to have the National Guard armed, and sitting on the border, but, that maybe what it takes, if we ever really get serious about stopping illegal immigration, and protect the people that own property on our borders.

Last edited by Socrates; February 25, 2009 at 12:36 PM.
Socrates is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 01:19 PM   #36
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,942
Quote:
A subtle point and it may start a flame war for which I apologize. My point on slavery was that the general population of slave owner states were, in general, quite OK with slavery. Their ownership of firearms and the 2nd Amend. did not automatically transfer to a respect for liberty for the slaves.

Thus, the contention that the 2nd and firearms ownership almost automatically guarantees a respect for liberty doesn't hold. Private firearms ownership can be a buffer to prevent genocide (suggested by studies that indicate that genocide occurs against the weak). But it doesn't gurantee that a firearms owning majority is necessarily a respector of liberty.
I don't think that anyone has suggested that firearms ownership guarantees a respect for liberty. What I've been trying to say is that a government is less likely to become opressive if it knows that the population it wishes to opress is armed. The issue of slavery and John Brown's insurrection in particular is an example of this: the slave owners had little concern for the liberty of slaves in part because the slaves were unarmed. Many states, in fact, went to great lengths to ensure that slaves remained unarmed out of fear of a slave rebellion.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 01:36 PM   #37
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,659
We should be able to discuss this without a "flame war".

Quote:
Their ownership of firearms and the 2nd Amend. did not automatically transfer to a respect for liberty for the slaves.

Thus, the contention that the 2nd and firearms ownership almost automatically guarantees a respect for liberty doesn't hold.
That seems uncontroversial, but who contends that firearms ownership automatically guarantees a respect for liberty generally? Would any individual right automatically guarantee such a respect?

I think we can fairly generalise that a government that has real regard for its citizens' liberty will also provide to citizens the means by which to exercise and protect that liberty. The means by which we institutionalise that regard for liberty involves legal protection of rights to vote, speak, worship, assemble, bear arms, freedom from warrantless search, own property, have access to courts, etc.

When one of those rights is diminished, it may not be the only one diminished. By way of example, I was and still am a vehement opponent of McCain-Feingold election financing "reform" for its limitations on the means by which people speak and are heard. Like a character in a Twilight Zone episode, McCain got what he wanted then was bitten by it.

We have a phalanx of rights; carelessness or indifference about one area of rights is unlikely to be good for the rest.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 02:27 PM   #38
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,836
Oh, I agree - my cynical mind sometimes freezes on cliched rhetoric and some of the RKBA argument does that. Not to be a contrarian. Some of the rhetoric does seem to imply what I said. I note that we here are more nuanced.

About the Swiss - see that's my point. It is nice to argue that the Swiss military system precluded a German invasion. That was part of it. The Swiss had resistance plans. One major part was the destruction of tunnels leading to Italy. Their destruction would have greatly hampered German military plans. They also mined roads and plants that would have been to the advantage of the Germans to seize.

Next, the Swiss - in a horrible situation - did cooperate with the Germans to a very large extent.

Thus, invading Switzerland was contemplated but not needed according to most German analyses. No one doubted that the Wermacht could have taken Switzerland at some cost. The same analysis was made of the invasion of Sweden. Cooperation was high and the cost wasn't worth it.

Portraying the Swiss system as the sole protector of their country is easily refuted and if one makes this argument for the RKBA, you'd better understand the nuances.

If we also talk about persuasion, the chances of a foreign invasion in the classic sense of the USA is nil. One might argue that criminal activity is an 'invasion' but since most folks think of those issues as a need for increased law enforcement as compared to civilians in Hummers with M2s - that's not going to be a convincing argument.

If this discussion is to provide a rationale for the RKBA with examples, one really needs to think of ones that have some realistic bite. I think of the principles of persuasion and again mention that a silly argument later negates even strong ones.

The strong practical arguments as I see them (as compared to some theoretic statement) are:

1. Personal protection against crime
2. Personal and neighborhood protection against major social disruption like Katrina - but you need to stay away from racist rants (which we have seen here before).
3. Protection against racism and related terrorism (like the Deacons for Defense story).
4. Protection against an elected tyranny - but if that argument is only from the right - let's have guns to overthrow the government to put in a regressive right wing government and save our guns(the usual RKBA revolution call) - that isn't going to fly.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 03:19 PM   #39
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Sorry, I had to go to work and missed a lot of this. Good comments Glenn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Had both sides been armed equally well, I suspect the outcome may have been quite different.
I don't think it was a question of arms but numbers that ruled the day and most of the genocide was done with machetes and axes not guns. I don't think your point holds using the balance of terror analogy. Again, liberty and freedom were not restored in Rwanda just revenge taken and leadership changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
how were the citizens in Cuba supposed to rise up and support the invasion.
Actually, the CIA had done a pretty good job of smuggling in weapons and had given instructions for the rest of the Cuban populace to sabotage Fidel's Army. They didn't do it because they didn't support the uprising. Again, having arms and even a supporting Army of exiles did not return freedom to Cuba. There was little or no history of democracy in Cuba, just repression and corruption and today it remains. An armed citizenry would not change that, just change who was calling the shots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
As far as an instance of an armed population throwing off a tyrannical government, what do you call the American Revolution?
I should have said after the Revolutionary War. Caught me there but still no good. Why? Because we in America had no part of that system in 1776. No representation, no free press, no right to trial by jury, no free speech. Revolution in that case, and in some other similar ones in history, was the only option because there were no other means of redress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Also, as kirpi97 pointed out, it is rather difficult to point out something that never happened because an armed population prevented it
Sure there is. Each of the historical examples I gave you were tryannical and counter to the COTUS. In fact the USA paid reparations to the Japanese that we wrongfully imprisoned in WWII.

In each and every case the armed citizenry did nothing and it was our democratic institutions that undid the wrongs. Either the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches righted the wrongs. In every case and never were armed citizens either a deterrent to government overstepping their bounds or a remedy to an ongoing infraction. It hasn't happened and won't because our democratic institutions will do it lawfully and peacefully. Even as recently as Katrina when Mayor Nagin unlawfully confiscated firearms from NO law-abiding residents did the "armed citizens" stop it or right it. The courts did by injunction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
An armed populace provides two things: protection against our government, and, protection against invaders.
I contend it does neither and hasn't in over 100 years. A professional military and police force has done it. An armed populace today protects individuals from crime and lawlessness and the 2A guarantees us that right. No right granted to overthrow the government in the 2A.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; February 25, 2009 at 03:26 PM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 03:40 PM   #40
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
a government is less likely to become opressive if it knows that the population it wishes to opress is armed.
A government is less likely to oppress it's citizen's when it's power is checked by law and institutions that won't allow one person or a small group to take over. Our founders insured that with the Separations of Powers and not with the 2d Amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gleen E. Meyer
Next, the Swiss - in a horrible situation - did cooperate with the Germans to a very large extent.

Thus, invading Switzerland was contemplated but not needed according to most German analyses. No one doubted that the Wermacht could have taken Switzerland at some cost. The same analysis was made of the invasion of Sweden. Cooperation was high and the cost wasn't worth it.

Portraying the Swiss system as the sole protector of their country is easily refuted and if one makes this argument for the RKBA, you'd better understand the nuances.
Glenn, thanks for debunking that old canard. I think Swiss banks deterred the Nazi's more than their small army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
Currently, we have border squabbles with Mexico based drug gangs, police, and factions of the armed forces. They are armed with automatic weapons, and, the people on those borders should have the right to respond in kind.
Socrates our military and police can deal with that. I am afraid that what you suggest may look like this:

__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; February 25, 2009 at 04:04 PM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 04:46 PM   #41
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
Quote:
Socrates our military and police can deal with that. I am afraid that what you suggest may look like
They aren't and can't. Our military is not supposed to operate on US soil. The National Guard is guarding a border with empty guns?

Police response time is NOT something I'm willing to bet my life on, and no one else should, either. If you employee enough police to have a 'safe' society, you don't have a free one. In rural areas firearms are pretty much the first, and only line of defense, and, the police are cleanup crews.
Quote:
1. Personal protection against crime
2. Personal and neighborhood protection against major social disruption like Katrina....
3. Protection against racism and related terrorism (like the Deacons for Defense story).
4. Protection against an elected tyranny - but if that argument is only from the right - let's have guns to overthrow the government to put in a regressive right wing government and save our guns(the usual RKBA revolution call) - that isn't going to fly.
Glenn, your list.
Number one I address above.
2. I've brought this up before: The Rodney King Riots, or organized crime spree, was an excellent example of the police NOT being able to protect the public from the L.A.
gangs redistributing wealth, by robbery.
That said, Louisiana is the ultimate castle state, since their system of laws protect the right for the property owner to protect his property from invaders, including police, with deadly force. Katrina does show that given that situation, before moving in, the police are, either for their own safety, or, from their own beliefs, going to grab every gun they know is present, indeed leaving the people defenseless. The real shock is that the police chief is still in a position of power.
3. Slavery has caused the majority HUGE losses of freedom. It's truly a loose loose situation. Oppression causes actions that lost our freedom, by expanding the government's involvement, and scope, with absurd cases like Heart of Atlanta, and the expansion of the Commerce Clause to a point where the Federal government has Jurisdiction over everything, and states have no rights.
4. I'm not sure the right to bear arms is only protected from the right. Keep in mind that currently I think Obama is acting more like a Republican then the prior Republican president did. Concepts such as balanced budgets, and reducing the debt? In fact, it appears that the two party system is a strawman, designed to keep us at each others throats, when, in fact, it's become a one party Oligarchy.
A Republican is, after all, nothing more then a Democrat that's been mugged.

I'm also wondering if our current president may not have a MUCH better understanding of what the Constitution is about then I gave him credit for, and many others. Since this is a 2A discussion, and, he did graduate from Harvard with honors, and, he's been a consultant Con Law professor, he might not have swallowed the common law Harvard school view of 2A.

In fact, once elected, the presidency is set for life, and, like some Supreme Court judges, his ultimate direction may end up considerably different from the party that put him into power.

As for the Swiss, I'm not willing to let that argument go.
While I understand the other angles, and the cost benefit of invading certain countries, it brings up a number of points. Japan was, or at least the quote is made, that the idea of invading American was unwise, due to the number of weapons in our country, it's distance away, and the type of land, and, cover. I guess Yamamoto, or some of the Japanese generals studied our history, and, realized the problems of fighting a guerilla populace in the U.S.

TG:


For some reason, the war vets I've known, or at least many of them, think that the protection of family/land/country should be only in a military that is not supposed to operate in our country at all. "No standing army" means just that. I suggest that the Swiss model is much healthier, and, that the above picture you post with apprehension in support of your position to limit gun ownership is the exact reason we should have no limits.
If firearms are in every home, which they nearly are now, thanks to the latest buying spree, they start to loose their status as 'illegal'. The Swiss have a healthy, out in the open, legal right to carry a firearm. The government sponsors shooting, complete with alcohol, on a regular basis. Instead of having to sneak around my state, concealing my firearms, and afraid to let any of my neighbors, or co-workers now I'm a 2A advocate, I could have a life where those things are just things you do. Instead of having to hide your rifle, it's just like going skiing, it's part of the culture. A healthy respect for firearms, and their place in our history and society is a freedom we seem to have lost.

I studied Politics at a very liberal school. At the end of the day, I came to this conclusion:
The country with the biggest guns, and strongest military, gets to write the laws, both international and domestic.
Having those guns is of no use, unless you are willing to use them. Since Japan, we have not used our abilities, and, the results have been lost wars.
Vietnam, Korea, etc. are examples of putting ourselves into situations the Japanese would have been smart enough to avoid, or fight differently. Fighting a satellite country, on the border of a country with 1.2 billion people, and probably that many Mosin Nagants, and AK's, doesn't seem to be the wisest of moves, and, we've lost everytime.

In short, our weapons systems have been the best, but, without the resolve to actually use them, we will be viewed as weak, and our ability to put the rules for international politics weakened.

There is a tendency for people to forget the real threat of war, and, for nations to grow fat, complacent, and think they are invulnerable. I'm hoping that we will wake up, and realize that George doing it, is not the right answer for this issue.

Last edited by Socrates; February 25, 2009 at 05:23 PM.
Socrates is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 05:35 PM   #42
Kleinzeit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 562
Quote:
Louisiana is the ultimate castle state, since their system of laws protect the right for the property owner to protect his property from invaders, including police, with deadly force.
Good lord... Is that true? No wonder the police took the guns. They must have been terrified. Imagine trying to do your job with dehydrated, delirious loonies, mad at the gummint for leaving them there, manning sniper posts from their roofs.

Taking the guns was bad. I'm not saying it wasn't. But enshrining the right to kill the police shows too little faith in the rule of law, and is bound to result in an anxious government seizing back the control they should never have surrendered.

Mind you, I have no idea how Louisiana law works in practice. But that kind of law just sounds wrong.
Kleinzeit is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 05:50 PM   #43
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
The doctrine in law school was Louisiana law was from the Napoleonic Code, and, it placed property above people.

The reasoning is that a person is secure in his property, and, that the police should know that they must have the owners permission to enter, and therefore, since they know, if they are shot by accident, i.e. the property owner did not know they were/are police, the shooting is justified.

It also means no civil suit, or criminal charges if you shoot to protect your house, or property.

I don't have a problem with that.
All it really means is the police have to be careful, and respectful. There is/was no excuse for their actions, other then they brought in out of staters to help, and, they brought their own law with them.
Socrates is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 05:54 PM   #44
Kleinzeit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 562
Thanks for the explanation, Socrates.
Kleinzeit is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 06:17 PM   #45
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,836
I have to leave the field of debate for a day or two. So I won't read replies. The Japanese example is again an example of the gun world cliche that sounds good.

If you study the Japanese plans - and there are doctoral dissertations on it, I have one that was published - there were no plans ever to invade the United States. They did not even consider it to get to the point of worrying about our armed populace. The logistics of such an invasion were impossible for the Japanese and they knew it. Many of them knew they would lose the battle based on differential industrial capacity.

They wanted to do two things:

1. Hope for a negotiated settlement to get a freer hand in China and other Asian areas. They were incensed that Western powers could establish sphere of influence and colonies in Asia but they couldn't.

2. Get some measure of respect and revenge (even if they lost the war) for Perry's forced opening of Japan and actions later by other Western powers. If they gave a crushing defeat Pearl Harbor to the USA and the Brits (Malaya, Singapore and the sinking of their two battleships on 12/8 IIRC), that would gain respect.

The quotes about every blade of grass may not be real as some of the Hitler quotes.

I might be wrong but the Swiss have a permit system for concealed weapons carry and the gun in every house is now under debate.

BTW - I didn't say I was for limiting gun rights. That's a rhetorical trick in these kind of arguments. You're an anti, you are a Brady!! Nyah, Nyah. I was trying to present a reasoned view of the arguments that support the RKBA to avoid cliches that don't have strong evidential base.

If we had a strong attack on the RKBA again, talking about invasion is the exact innoculation effect that would make the general populace outside the choir say the argument for the RKBA is not that valid. Note, I mean Swiss vs. Germans kind of invasion.

Protection against crime has some traction in the surveys of gun attitudes. Invasion and insurrection don't. Reality of convincing argumentation may not go well with the choir. I prefer to be effective in argument.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 06:22 PM   #46
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
The problem is, Police Chiefs, much like elected officials, and certain presidents, will say anything to their constituents, and, once they are in, they flip. I don't know the specifics of the Katrina police chief, heck, I don't even know how the
Napoleonic code has held up under attack in Louisiana. Long way away.

Good example is the Orange County new police chief. She was elected, or appointed, by a Board who does represent their voters. The result has been, even though one of the key issues was maintaining CCW, she has attacked CCW holders, and, even has the force working against the board that appointed her.

Apparently, at least in Kali, the election of a police chief is limited to a very few candidates, and, once in place, they are very difficult to remove. Sort of like a Federal judge.
Since they control the issuance of ccw permits, this issue is a 2A issue.

S
Socrates is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 06:48 PM   #47
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
They aren't and can't. Our military is not supposed to operate on US soil.
Not sure where you came up with that one but it is absolutely not true. The military is by law mandated to protect our borders from foreign invasion. An incursion from Mexico (or Canada for that matter) that local police could not handle would be met with military (either active or NG) force and destroyed.

Who or what says we cannot have a Standing Army?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
In rural areas firearms are pretty much the first, and only line of defense, and, the police are cleanup crews.
Probably true and firearms in common use by civlians are plenty good to deal with the threat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
As for the Swiss, I'm not willing to let that argument go.
I will look for some links to show you the dirty deals the Swiss did with Nazi Germany to avoid invasion. Again, it was not their reserves. Keep in mind that for a tiny neutral country that type of system might be fine but no other powerful country has such a setup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
that the above picture you post with apprehension in support of your position to limit gun ownership is the exact reason we should have no limits.
I really don't think the "Swiss Model" works here. I am not sure we could afford it or have it be workable either. Even though we would get to have neat guns, it is much more than that. It's training and a chain of command and discipline. Something the guys in my picture don't have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Protection against crime has some traction in the surveys of gun attitudes. Invasion and insurrection don't. Reality of convincing argumentation may not go well with the choir. I prefer to be effective in argument.
Well said!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
I don't know the specifics of the Katrina police chief,
Didn't he get fired?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 07:09 PM   #48
kirpi97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 236
First it is good to have you back in the fray Tennessee Gentleman. I miss your insightful comments. With that said, back to the war of ideologies.

My response was to this initial this question:

Quote:
Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical.
I do not see the connection with a leader doing something tyrannical and the U.S. paying reparations.

Quote:
In fact the USA paid reparations to the Japanese that we wrongfully imprisoned in WWII.
The reparations were paid because the will of the people changed. Where were those judges in 1949? The law was the same then as it is now, in that regards. The same Bill of Rights existed. Okay then let's for argument say it wasn't the same. I didn't see those judges or any member of our congress advocating paying reparation in the 70s or the 80s. What changed?

The people and how they viewed human rights. We changed. So I do not see that there was any tyrannical leader doing something that the populous determined had to be stopped. If anything, the fact that the President of the US could impose Martial Law and with Congress suspend the rights of some Americans, for what they perceived at the time as protecting Americans, could be seen as the armed populous not stopping tyrannical actions. EXCEPT, that the populous was in agreement. So there was no outcry.

And to now look at the event years later and say because we paid reparations means our system did right. No. It means that we as Country recognized a wrong and offered a token as an olive branch to appease the masses that clamored for something to be done. Our system of judges, laws, police officers, congressmen, school board directors, teaches, professors, did nothing in the 1940s to stop it.

My Geography professor in college served in the US military in the Pacific Theater while his parents lived in those camps. He was not bitter. Neither were his parents. Because in some cases, as they told me, the camps provided protection from vigil antes. Was it right? I wasn't there.

I just know the outcry that followed 9/11. And how we had to reach out to a segment of our society to assure them that they would receive the same protection under the law as other Americans.

I look forward to your opening the eyes of this wayward thinker concerning how the WWII incident with the Japanese fits the scenario of the basic argument.

Now as for Katrina:
Quote:
Even as recently as Katrina when Mayor Nagin unlawfully confiscated firearms from NO law-abiding residents did the "armed citizens" stop it or right it. The courts did by injunction.
Here the populous reacted in a civil manner when asked by their elected officials to obey what was thought to be in the best interest of the society. Not every one followed the directive. But for the most part, the people complied. They trusted the government would be there to provide protection.

So a majority of the armed citizens were not opposed to what was being asked. So there was no tyrannical despot to unseat. And the fact that the judges later rectified the wrong doing only shows they are helpless to stop a tyrannical leader from imposing their will upon the people. Their power resides in the people following the law. When that ceases, judges are helpless.

Both examples show that our system of government is retroactive when it comes to stopping a tyrannical leader. We use our military to stop tyrannical leaders in countries where the populous is either unable or unwilling to engage. But here, we react.

The rule of law gets its power from the people. And it is the people who must stand behind that law for it to work. And when the people's values change, the law changes with it.

P.S. I do have to give you credit for stirring picture. I will agree with you on that point.
__________________
The parting shot...
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by kirpi97; February 25, 2009 at 07:17 PM.
kirpi97 is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 07:22 PM   #49
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirpi97
First it is good to have you back in the fray Tennessee Gentleman. I miss your insightful comments.
Thank you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirpi97
I do not see the connection with a leader doing something tyrannical and the U.S. paying reparations.
My point was to show that even the government that inflicted the harm later on said it was wrong to do so and further made attempts to make it right. The Japanese Internment during WWII was an act of tyranny against American citizens. The COUTUS was mugged and it is a stain on our history. No armed citizens stopped it and so my point that an armed citizenry does not create a bulwark against abusive government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirpi97
The rule of law gets its power from the people. And it is the people who must stand behind that law for it to work. And when the people's values change, the law changes with it.
I am not sure I disagree with any thing you said in the post. However, the question and issue is does the armed citizenry prevent tyranny? I say it does not and agree with your well worded thesis that the democratic institutions do that even if retroactively and that the fact that today some civilians own firearms will not prevent or rectify abuses of government power.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 10:38 PM   #50
kirpi97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 236
Quote:
However, the question and issue is does the armed citizenry prevent tyranny?
Ah, here we are in agreement. Italy and Germany in the past and Venezuela today show how even a once democratic country, even with an armed citizenry, can be moved to a point that their rights are stripped from them. And all the arms in the hands of the citizens did nothing to change it.

Darn. Now I have to find something else to disagree with. I love a good debate. It is something I miss. In today's world of debates. The example displayed by the media in our politicians is not debating. So I thank you kind sir. You are gentleman.
__________________
The parting shot...
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson
kirpi97 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16233 seconds with 7 queries