patrick.net

CL says

FortWayne says

How many tyrants did this country have since the second amendment? How many Putin's are in charge of USA? How often did Sadam Husseins ran our country?

Iraq had more guns than almost any country, per capita.

Lithuania has less than 1 per 100,000 citizens. Gun ownership therefore CAUSES tyranny, right?

Point taken. I don't think high gun ownership makes tyranny more or less likely or severe. Nor do I think gun ownership makes a society at large safer or less safe. There does not seem to be any measurable correlation one way or the other when comparing all the nation states of the world.

However, I do think that there is a strong correlation and causality between culture and both safety and tyranny. Wherever human life is valued and economic well being is equitable (read high wages for labor, relatively even distribution of wealth), violence and tyranny are less common and less accepted. Where labor and life are cheap, violence and tyranny are common and people think there is no alternative.

Kevin says

By this standard, every nation, past, present, and future, has a tyrannical government.

Got it.

Not even close. Not even for the past. I sure as hell hope not for the future.

CL says

Dan8267 says

To you, tyranny is about numbers, how many people's rights are violated

Is it tyranny if people choose it? Or aren't upset by it?

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around....

If a single person doesn't choose to be
- gang raped by police
- tortured
- imprisoned without charges
- assassinated
but is, then yes, it's tyranny.

Tyranny is always a crime against an individual. How many individuals is less important than the fact that it happens and those responsible are not held accountable.

Dan8267 says

Kevin says

By this standard, every nation, past, present, and future, has a tyrannical government.

Got it.

Not even close. Not even for the past. I sure as hell hope not for the future.

Name one government that hasn't presided over a period where some group was not treated according to the conditions mentioned in your original criteria. You definitely can't count any European country, the US, any asian country, any south american country, australia, canada, mexico, cuba, the middle east, or most of africa.

Either tyranny needs a higher standard to be classified as such, or every government is tyrannical.

Dan8267 says

Wherever human life is valued and economic well being is equitable (read high wages for labor, relatively even distribution of wealth), violence and tyranny are less common and less accepted. Where labor and life are cheap, violence and tyranny are common and people think there is no alternative.

I think this is an excellent point. There's a lot more to power than the penis extender. There is wealth, justice, fairness, equality. These seemingly esoteric concepts would be more likely to predict tyranny than gun ownership.Dan8267 says

If a single person doesn't choose to be

- gang raped by police

- tortured

- imprisoned without charges

- assassinated

but is, then yes, it's tyranny.

Speaking of esoteric, I was just getting all Zen on the concept. Since tyranny necessarily requires that someone opposes, if no one opposes, is it still tyranny?

Government intrusion to stop "terrorism" gets a free pass. If one objects, is it then tyranny or democracy? Who defines what's "too far"?

We have rational restrictions on our rights...no yelling "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse and all that. If one thinks the right is absolute and it is denied by our courts, is that tyranny?

Or is it limited to bodily violations?

Kevin says

Name one government that hasn't presided over a period where some group was not treated according to the conditions mentioned in your original criteria. You definitely can't count any European country, the US, any asian country, any south american country, australia, canada, mexico, cuba, the middle east, or most of africa.

No shit if we include the Dark Ages. But just because Denmark was a tyrannical kingdom in the Middle Ages, doesn't mean the modern government is tyrannical.

But here's the most important point. You think that tyranny is some kind of binary condition. Either a country is absolute tyranny or it's not tyranny at all. I believe that tyranny, like all evils, can be throttled. There are degrees of tyranny just like there are degrees of slavery, degrees of genocide, degrees of rape, even degrees of murder.

The United States certainly has more tyranny in it than we should tolerate. If a violent uprising had a chance of success -- which it certainly doesn't -- then there is already sufficient cause to uprise and overthrow all the tyrants (president, Congress, lobbyists) from power and force a rewriting of the Constitution. However, such an uprising is doomed to fail no matter what the pro-gun group says about guns protecting us from tyranny.

CL says

There's a lot more to power than the penis extender.

WTF?

Dan8267 says

CL says

There's a lot more to power than the penis extender.

WTF?

Guns.

CL says

Dan8267 says

CL says

There's a lot more to power than the penis extender.

WTF?

Guns.

Oh, I was afraid this thread was taking a sudden turn to a different direction.

It's true that some of the appeal of guns is due to insecure men and women needing to feel empowered and guns give them a false sense of security.

However, the desire for guns is much more than that. Some people just like guns because they are fun to shoot. Of course, that's what first person shooter games are for. All the fun and no one gets hurt.

Dan8267 says

And that illustrates the fundamental difference between your worldview and mine. To you, tyranny is about numbers, how many people's rights are violated. To me, tyranny is about degree, how severely people's rights are violated.

I'm not saying it's perfect out here, but it's better than elsewhere. Struggle against oppression is something we'll always have government or no government. It's human nature for some humans to come kill and take what they want from others. Guns make private property and life easier to defend.

FortWayne says

Guns make private property and life easier to defend.

Oh, so now it's no longer about overthrowing tyrants; it's about keeping your "stuff". Your values just sort of blow in the wind, don't they?

Homeboy says

Oh, so now it's no longer about overthrowing tyrants; it's about keeping your "stuff". Your values just sort of blow in the wind, don't they?

Are you just off the boat or something kid? This is America, the land of personal property and rights. It is about both, we don't want dictators, and we want our life, liberty, and property protected. It's written right into the constitution in the 5th amendment.

All of our amendments are intertwined, if you take one away, you can take away all the others. Guns are the last resort.

FortWayne says

All of our amendments are intertwined, if you take one away, you can take away all the others. Guns are the last resort.

I know!

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

If they infringe on our speech, how will we protest the quartering!!!

"All of our amendments are intertwined, if you take one away, you can takeaway all the others. Guns are the last resort."

There is no amendment granting you the right to use a gun to protect your "stuff". Funny, the gun nuts scream about not taking away any part of the bill of rights, but then would happily take away the first clause of the second.

Be honest, you don't really give a shit about tyranny. You just want to have a gun because it makes it feel like your penis isn't quite so small.

CL says

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

If they infringe on our speech, how will we protest the quartering!!!

In many countries if you create a business that competes with someone who is politically connected government simply comes and takes your stuff. 5th amendment specifically does not allow government to come by and take your stuff without just compensation.

And 2nd amendment is there for you when government stops respecting your first, fifth, or any other.

FortWayne says

In many countries if you create a business that competes with someone who is politically connected government simply comes and takes your stuff. 5th amendment specifically does not allow government to come by and take your stuff without just compensation.

Who says they have to take your stuff to get what they want.

Dan8267 says

The only person who defied the state using any kind of physical force and had any kind of success -- and by success, I mean inflicting some damage before committing suicide -- was the great, late Marvin Heemeyer, the tank hero of Granby, Colorado.

This guy was so awesome, I'd have his babies if I could.

But even his success was minimal and obtained using a home built tank, not a gun.

FortWayne says

In many countries if you create a business that competes with someone who is politically connected government simply comes and takes your stuff. 5th amendment specifically does not allow government to come by and take your stuff without just compensation.

And 2nd amendment is there for you when government stops respecting your first, fifth, or any other.

But the 3rd doesn't rest on the 1st.

In any case, I don't think quartering is coming back. Maybe the 2nd should be considered vestigial like the 3rd.

They aren't really dependent on each other. Like Dan said, I think our collective conscience and sense of freedom, fairness and whatnot are probably what eliminated our fear of quartering.

CL says

They aren't really dependent on each other. Like Dan said, I think our collective conscience and sense of freedom, fairness and whatnot are probably what eliminated our fear of quartering.

They are. Freedom of speech is only good if government can't put you permanently in prison without trial. Business only can grow if government can't shut it down without reason. And bill of rights is a representation of that collective thought.

You change the bill of rights and you'll see dictatorship set in pretty quick, that train is never late in a morally corrupt society like ours. People always tend to give up freedoms for a little false sense of security. At least half the board on patrick.net would give up 2nd amendment.

And I remember when 5th amendment became a problem for CA government and their abuse of Eminent Domain. They would have provided no fair compensation if they could simply take your property and give it to their best crony. But they couldn't, because our constitution prevents that type of abuse.

This country needs more people like that Heemeyer fella. If we don't stand up to big government they'll ruin us all for their personal benefit.

I remember when Joe Stack made the news by flying a plane into IRS building. Inhumane, but he did make a point. Dan should remember that one too, I think we spoke about it back than.

FortWayne says

I'm not saying it's perfect out here, but it's better than elsewhere. Struggle against oppression is something we'll always have government or no government.

It is true that the struggle against oppression and tyranny is an eternal struggle. But that's exactly why it is important to acknowledge the tyranny that does occur in one's own country.

America isn't the worst offender by far, but it also isn't the freest country anymore either. There are plenty of countries like the Netherlands that are substantially more free than we are and that have considerably more government accountability than we do.

I hate the notion that we should just accept the atrocities that America commits simply because, "at least we're better than China". That's a low bar. We should push back whenever government steps too far, and over the past 70 years, we as a people have woefully failed to do that. The only question is how can we push back. I don't think rifles and militias are going to work because the power levels are so asymmetric. Otherwise, I'd had been the first person with a rifle in my hands when Gitmo first opened.

FortWayne says

And 2nd amendment is there for you when government stops respecting your first, fifth, or any other.

I would love to believe that, but I've never seen it. Here's what I want to see.

I want a pro-gun, pro-militia person or group of persons to video the cops while they are harassing someone. When the cops tell the people to stop videoing and move back (which they most certainly will), I want the person or group to say "hell no". When the cops threaten the group with arrest, I want the group to pull out their guns and place the cops under citizen arrest for the crime of false arrest and violating Constitutional rights. If that actually fucking works, I'll be 100% pro-gun. And by works, I mean the cops get convicted and no charges are pressed against anyone in the group, or if charges are pressed, the prosecutor pressing the charges is disbarred.

I would happily accept the argument that the Second Amendment protects us from the illegal actions of the police if I say this happen. And there's opportunities for this to happen every single freaking day.

FortWayne says

And I remember when 5th amendment became a problem for CA government and their abuse of Eminent Domain. They would have provided no fair compensation if they could simply take your property and give it to their best crony.

This is exactly why I don't support Eminent Domain. The government should give above market prices if ED is necessary. And anyone using ED for personal profits or to profit cronies should be arrested. Hell, citizens should be allowed to make such an arrest.

FortWayne says

This country needs more people like that Heemeyer fella. If we don't stand up to big government they'll ruin us all for their personal benefit.

I agree, but remember, he still died. Was there any other possible outcome? He didn't think so, which is why he sealed the exit to his tank. Could someone or a militia group do what Heemeyer did without being killed or imprisoned as a terrorist? Remember, Heemeyer made sure that no person was hurt and only the property of the guilty was damaged.

Dan8267 says

Otherwise, I'd had been the first person with a rifle in my hands when Gitmo first opened.

The way this country is heading. If they don't close Gitmo all of us might still get that opportunity. I just hope that time doesn't come.

Dan8267 says

I would happily accept the argument that the Second Amendment protects us from the illegal actions of the police if I say this happen. And there's opportunities for this to happen every single freaking day.

I bet it happens and happens a lot, and when it does it isn't reported same way on the news. News have to be politically correct, approved by the government and the state if they don't want trouble.

So even if someone defends themselves, will promptly be labeled a criminal or a murderer and sent off to prison or executed.

FortWayne says

This country needs more people like that Heemeyer fella. If we don't stand up to big government they'll ruin us all for their personal benefit.

We don't need more people rampaging around in home built tanks, but we do need more people who don't let the system abuse people.

Dan8267 says

Remember, Heemeyer made sure that no person was hurt and only the property of the guilty was damaged.

This is one of the big differences between Heemeyer and Joe Stack. Stack set out with the intention of killing people and was successful in killing one person.

Also, Joe Stack seems to have been his own worst enemy when it came to getting in the position he was in. Sure Stack had many valid complaints, but what should one expect to happen when they choose not to file tax returns. There are many, and better, examples of people driven to suicide by the IRS, but they don't cause enough damage for us to hear about them.

Here is one though:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/07/us/irs-settles-a-widow-s-lawsuit-over-the-suicide-of-her-husband.html

leo707 says

We don't need more people rampaging around in home built tanks, but we do need more people who don't let the system abuse people

It isn't possible when people up top make all the decisions and enforce them selectively for their own benefit.

Joe Stack was a crazy man, and I'm not defending his method, but he sure had some valid points about our government being an old boys club.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

I would happily accept the argument that the Second Amendment protects us from the illegal actions of the police if I say this happen. And there's opportunities for this to happen every single freaking day.

I bet it happens and happens a lot, and when it does it isn't reported same way on the news. News have to be politically correct, approved by the government and the state if they don't want trouble.

So even if someone defends themselves, will promptly be labeled a criminal or a murderer and sent off to prison or executed.

If people indeed are using guns to defend themselves from police "a lot", but still being sent to prison/executed then the Second Amendment does not matter. Ultimately their guns did not protect them from tyranny, and they could have done the same thing with an "illegal" gun.

leo707 says

If people indeed are using guns to defend themselves from police "a lot", but still being sent to prison/executed then the Second Amendment does not matter. Ultimately their guns did not protect them from tyranny, and they could have done the same thing with an "illegal" gun.

But Leo, that is like saying that guns didn't really protect Jews from Nazi's so they had no reason to have guns. And as you know Nazi's did make it illegal for Jews to have guns, only government officials had the right or those "with good cause approved by the government".

FortWayne says

But Leo, that is like saying that guns didn't really protect Jews from Nazi's so they had no reason to have guns. And as you know Nazi's did make it illegal for Jews to have guns, only government officials had the right or those "with good cause approved by the government".

It took a huge military effort to stop the Nazi movement. Nazi Germany rolled over armies with a lot more hardware and resources than rifles and pistols. There were very large and organized resistance movements all over occupied Europe. While helpful none of the resistance movements (or all combine) would have brought about an end to the Nazi machine. Without external help they all would have eventually been ground down.

I am not sure that the Jews being allowed to have guns, and thus increasing the size of the Jewish resistance, would have had that big of an effect on the outcome.

And this is all before smart bombs, drones and spy satellites.

FortWayne says

leo707 says

We don't need more people rampaging around in home built tanks, but we do need more people who don't let the system abuse people

It isn't possible when people up top make all the decisions and enforce them selectively for their own benefit.

Joe Stack was a crazy man, and I'm not defending his method, but he sure had some valid points about our government being an old boys club.

I more or less agree, but I don't see the Second Amendment ever being a solution to this problem.

FortWayne says

News have to be politically correct, approved by the government and the state if they don't want trouble.

Not RT News.

leo707 says

It took a huge military effort to stop the Nazi movement.

It took the combined forces of all the rest of the industrial world except Italy and Japan to stop the Nazis. Militias wouldn't have cut it.

leo707 says

I am not sure that the Jews being allowed to have guns, and thus increasing the size of the Jewish resistance, would have had that big of an effect on the outcome.

It would have made a difference. Would have made it harder for government to round Jews up by the thousand to send them to concentration camps. Stalinists' wouldn't be able to do their ethnic cleansing either if they didn't disarm civilian population. George Orwell wrote some real good papers and books about it at that time.

Human history is full of examples where morality fails and government disarms civilians followed by mass murder and mass oppression. I don't think we as a nation are that different, any nation can fall into that trap. Disarming civilian population is usually the first step, using police or military to enforce other oppressive decisions isn't hard where obedience is easy to obtain.

Dan8267 says

It took the combined forces of all the rest of the industrial world except Italy and Japan to stop the Nazis. Militias wouldn't have cut it.

Didn't Hitler loosen Gun restrictions? I think the whole premise is based on a lie.

Makes for cute bumper stickers though!

Gun restrictions were loosened before Hitler took power; the Nazis added new ones (mainly targeting jews).

FortWayne says

Human history is full of examples where morality fails and government disarms civilians followed by mass murder and mass oppression.

And history is also full of examples where governments disarmed civilians and did not then commit mass murder or "extraordinary" mass oppression.

FortWayne says

Would have made it harder for government to round Jews up by the thousand to send them to concentration camps. Stalinists' wouldn't be able to do their ethnic cleansing either if they didn't disarm civilian population.

The thing is that people don't know that they are being rounded up to go do a death camp. Do you really think that the Jews would have used their guns to resist going to what they thought was merely a prison camp? Sure it would have been a little harder later after people began to suspect what was going on, but I don't think that the increase (yes there was a Jewish resistance movement) it would have given to the Jewish resistance fighters would have effected the outcome. Yes, they would have been more helpful, but they probably would not have equaled the effectiveness of the largest resistance movements of WWII.

We rounded up Japanese during WWII and treated them pretty bad. Do you think that the Japanese Americans would have been better off if they had fought tooth and nail to avoid going to the camps? Did we disarm them before announcing the war relocation camps?

leo707 says

but I don't think that the increase (yes there was a Jewish resistance movement) it would have given to the Jewish resistance fighters would have effected the outcome.

Armed resistance makes that a lot harder. Consider the war in the middle east? Soviets lost a war in Afghanistan because of the well armed rebels. And today US is stuck there for years and years because a standing Army can't fight vs guerrilla warfare.

Any resistance is better than outright submissiveness.

You can't force thousand of well armed people against their will onto the train to a death camp.

leo707 says

We rounded up Japanese during WWII and treated them pretty bad. Do you think that the Japanese Americans would have been better off if they had fought tooth and nail to avoid going to the camps? Did we disarm them before announcing the war relocation camps?

During WW2 it was the Japanese, who says next election it won't be other Americans based on their party affiliation especially if economy gets really bad and government can lay blame onto liberals or conservatives or whomever is convenient...?

IDDQD says

CL says

Didn't Hitler loosen Gun restrictions?

Yes he did. But not for Jews.

1938 German Weapons Act. Jews were prohibited, Nazi party members exempted from regulations. The rest is pretty much a copy of current CA gun laws.

FortWayne says

You can't force thousand of well armed people against their will onto the train to a death camp.

Yeah, if you call it a "death camp." No one runing a death camp call it that. It is always a "war relocation camp", "refugee camp", etc.

FortWayne says

Armed resistance makes that a lot harder. Consider the war in the middle east? Soviets lost a war in Afghanistan because of the well armed rebels. And today US is stuck there for years and years because a standing Army can't fight vs guerrilla warfare.

Remind me again who was it that armed Osama Ben Laden when he was fighting the Soviets? Afghan fighters had the capability of destroying just about any piece of Soviet hardware.

Sure, and as soon as American Citizens can be well armed (you know stuff that would actually destroy/disable an Apache, Abrams tank, drone, stealth aircraft, etc.) then you may have an argument. These days a bunch of semi-automatic AR-15s, 12 gauges, and .38 specials are just not going to cut it. Also, the most militant Americans seem to want to make things easy and convenient for any oppressive government wanting to take their guns and they round themselves up in a nice convenient location.

FortWayne says

During WW2 it was the Japanese, who says next election it won't be other Americans based on their party affiliation especially if economy gets really bad and government can lay blame onto liberals or conservatives or whomever is convenient...?

So, do you think that the Japanese would have been better off fighting tooth and nail to resist being taken to war relocation camps?

Aside from the rhetoric you see on the interwebs,

There's this:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/22692/hitler-gun-control-facts-u-s-pro-gun-advocates-have-more-in-common-with-hitler-than-they-thinkIDDQD says

Yes he did. But not for Jews.

That speaks more to antisemitism than gun control, right?

"Hitler, then, came into power when this regulation was in effect … so, yes, Hitler, by default, did have a gun control policy — but only because it was forced on Germany.

Remember how the Hitler Youth were trained to march not with rifles but with shovels? This was a result of the Treaty of Versailles, not a Hitler policy."