We’ll obviously have to agree to disagree on what Napolatino said: it’s there in black-and-white for other to judge.
I’m more interested in your view on my stealth edit comment:
My point is this: are you standing behind the old “right to bear arms” to defend against government tyranny? Is that a rational and strong enough basis to support gun possession, today?
I understand, and somewhat agree with, the the natural right argument applied to self-defense against non-government threats (e.g., animals, your fellow man). Certainly, our self-defense laws are exactly a recognition of that principle. That said, I think every gun advocate who still stands behind guns as a defense against tyrannous government is either sorely over-estimating the value of small arms in that scenario or they’re demanding more than a right to small arms (explosives, at a minimum).
Are private citizen guns still a bulwark against government action? Not talking about using guns to defend against criminals. We’re talking guns to be used against the police, the national guard, etc. If the answer is yes, we can then discuss what level of armament would be required to be effective.
Lynch
1668
It’s a hypothetical, imaginary, non-defeatable form of tyranny then? That’s one of the main reasons you need guns? Seriously?
Steps, are you thinking of it in terms of rebels destroying the military to install a free leader, like Syria or something? Maybe that’s the disconnect. I don’t think that’d be the scenario in America. I think it would be at the margins, from a defensive standpoint, until the tyrants gave up. Think Vietnam, not World War II.
Houngan
1670
I think at a personal level it’s much more about the right to self-defense for most gun owners. It’s a tiny and scary percentage that buy guns “in case the shit hits the fan.” A sadly growing percentage, but that’s not my or your fault. Here’s the circle of argument 'twixt you and I, as I see it. Feel free to correct me:
- Neopolitano brings up Warsaw
- You tied his “effectively” to ICBMs and tanks
- I disagreed that those made sense in the context of the U.S.
- And here we are
Several others are still stuck back on 2., hopefully they can read this and stop hand-waving.
So, to your question
We’re talking guns to be used against the police, the national guard, etc. If the answer is yes, we can then discuss what level of armament would be required to be effective.
My answer is this: On a personal level, I don’t have any belief or reason to believe that the U.S. could ever become any sort of despotic regime where the “2nd Amendment Solution” would be necessary, at least not in my lifetime barring some sort of bizarre natural disaster drought scenario or something. We’re too fat and happy.
Technically though, yes, I do believe the armed citizen could very well perform against most non-crazy (madman President nukes cities, Army is deployed to destroy neighborhoods) scenarios of despotism. If you want to go through the thought experiment, I’m willing.
Just to clear this up, there is no constitutional right to overthrow an unjust government. There’s a constitutional right to firearms ownership, but that’s not the same thing.
On your post, I’d disagree on your point 2 (i.e., my tie was to his “same” and “firepower”, which are unequivocal). But that’s a minor issue.
On the last point, I think you’ve created a justification that requires (and is only effective against) a mildy insane despot.
The band is crazy narrow. Look at Tim’s post: not Syria and World War II, but Vietnam?! I’m not even sure what narrow-band of violence he’s contemplating there. I believe Syria is exactly what we’re talking about (and what your scenario seems to map to). Syrian rebels are using a lot more than small arms.
Or, perhaps, you’re talking about a Branch Davidian kind of thing, but on mass-scale? Again, I think that rationale is ridiculous to stand behind.
Personal self-defense is reasonable starting point for a pro-gun argument. Effective resistance against the level of government tyranny that calls for armed resistance, that is effective with just small arms, is cherry-picking a tiny scenario and effectively crazy-talk or self-serving rationalization. For that rationale, you either have to stand behind expansion of weapon rights or admit that it’s a token gesture.
One other defense of the anti-tyranny concept I read was that the tactics don’t matter because simply possessing the guns means a tyrant would never try anything. It’s a little circular, but the idea is the assertion of that limited sovereignty is enough to keep it from getting to that point.
shrug It’s message board fodder. In any case, no one needs to worry about marching on the capital.
First, it appears in mass shootings that the semi-autos are a problem. My first Google turned up this, which says a large majority of the weapons used in mass shootings were semi-automatic handguns or assault rifles.
Didn’t see any other links that broke it down by weapon type, though I could have missed something.
Second, I don’t buy the argument that just because people can kill other people with lesser weapons, that we should allow them to have greater ones. The fact that an improvement is only incremental, rather than a total solution, doesn’t make that improvement invalid.
I’m seriously interested in you mapping the logical thought process of this squimish tyrant.
-
Plan to engage in tyrant-like behavior: it’s fun
-
Assess level of small arms in soon-to-be sheep population: if X implement plan, if Y, uh, go see a movie.
So, what do we have? I’m thinking Nixon (substitute Obama as needed) might be our best relative-recent president who had such a plan going up to step 1). Maybe some governor (Ahnold or the Body!). Man, lucky step 2) worked out.
Always with the crazy. Crazy crazy crazy. Crazy crazy.
Anyway, remember the lesson from economics: things happen at the margins. If the US turned into Syria or Nazi Germany overnight, we’d have to rethink the tactics. In America, the most likely case would be minor despot as you describe.
Yes. Crazy.
Defending a right to bear arms (and the costs that are associated therewith) based on personal self-defense: rational, reasonable position. Policy discussion to be had.
Defending right to bear arms (and the costs that are associated therewith) based on belief that ridiculously unlikely scenario and outcome will occur: crazy.
EDIT: Also, care to explain your crazy (crap, there’s that word again) reference to economics? Despots are like markets at equilibrium? Talk about non-sequiter. Remember the lesson from grading papers: things happen at the margins!
The Warsaw Ghetto WAS armed. Didn’t help, without allied support, in the end. It was purely an act of defiance.
It’s not a good reason to have a heavily armed civilian society, but to not allow preaching hate and to shun far right’s platform.
Mass shootings are a tiny portion of total shooting crimes or even total firearm homicides.
Writing legislature specifically to eliminate mass shootings is going to be insanely inefficient, just because they’re already statistically a non-issue.
I generally agree on the impact re assualt weapon bans. Rather, I support such a ban because it’s step in the right direction and government and national policy, especially on this topic, is going to slowly shift the situation.
Gun owners worrying about an assualt weapons ban as a slippery slope issue have a legitimate concern: it practically only has value as a start towards more truly effective gun control.
We’re not going to start with a serious handgun ban, day 1.
I thought I was game for a bit more, but my phone died and now the sugar rush is gone. I should probably pass on this thought experiment. I also don’t believe you are “serious” because:
When I’m not being a dick and later feeling bad about it, I make an honest attempt to explain viewpoints that some people may not understand. If that doesn’t help, I often work at it until I can determine the disconnect. But when I hit an irreconcilable threshold, I know it’s time to stop. Here we don’t see eye to eye on what crazy means. I don’t think the statistical likelihood of a scenario and its outcome is what makes it crazy. So gamely coming up with plausible explanations would be a waste of my time. You wouldn’t accept them because the probabilities make them fundamentally meaningless to you. There comes a time to accept that our differences lie on a lower level than what’s being discussed. Recognizing this process is genuinely the most useful lesson I’ve taken from QT3 P&R: understand the other person and move on.
Someone else will have to defend the anti-tyrant concept of the Second Amendment. Try JPFO. I don’t have the answer you’re looking for.
I do appreciate your honest concession on the effect of the assault weapons ban. Maybe I’m wrong about you.
NRA disappointed by meeting with Biden.
We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be ‘prejudged,’ this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans.
Haha. That reminds me, I do want to laugh at a new buzzword I noticed on Wednesday. The AP referred to Biden meeting with “gun safety” groups such as the Brady Campaign. I’ve never seen gun control groups, especially diehards like Brady, referred to as gun safety groups. I wonder if that will catch on.
Another good one from today: Biden said “consensus” was emerging on what to do, then immediately brought up bans on high cap mags. I thought it was curious he used that word. Even the compromising NRA would probably stand against that. Well, first I noticed it was Thursday morning and Biden hadn’t even met with them or media groups on Friday – good to hear he’s already settling on a solution after the first day. Haha. But then, just to make sure I hadn’t misunderstood the vocabulary word, I went to Wikipedia to read about consensus decision making. Apparently there are multiple levels. The difference between agreement and consent was also enlightening. It’s worth a read.
So Biden inadvertently using that word may have been the most intellectually intriguing thing he’s ever done. I learned something today. Thanks, Joe!
No problem, Tim!
I don’t recall who came up with the gun safety thing originally, but “make ownership and usage safer” seems like a fairly uncontroversial reframing for all the people who don’t want to, you know, get rid of guns, just limit the downsides.
On the consensus, the actual in-person meetings for stuff like this are for photo opportunities. The nuts and bolts agreements are down by staff in advance.
Houngan
1686
I gotta say Steps, kudos to you. I no shit, no snark salute you for taking a hard stance that is probably also an honest stance. That said, if the end goal is a complete ban on handguns, I gotta be against you on this.
