gun question - I would like to understand this

[Ludeykrus]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

fair enough, but almost nobody in the US takes any activity that might actually help prevent invasion or tyrany -.... I don't think that anybody can actually believe that their handgun is what keeps the government from tyrany.

or is there somebody out there who really believes that?

Yes. Far from an ideal example for anyone, the case of Carl Drega displays the usefulness of handguns in such an incident (keep in mind this is an extreme example).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Drega

The basic story is Carl had been harassed by the local government for around 20 years over 'code violations'. These included him not putting tarpaper on his roof in a timely fashion, and rebuilding a washed-out shoreline on a river that ran his property (he only rebuilt the area that was washed away in the large storm, no more no less). He was constantly harassed, threatened with fines that numbered more than he owned, and seizure of his property. It all culminated one day to an instance where he was pulled over for absolutely no reason; it was claimed he was pulled over for 'defects' in his truck, while the alleged defects were rusted holes in his truck bed. There was absolutely no way for a cop driving by to know about the holes. After harassment from the officers, Drega gunned down the officers and started on a path of vengeful death. He killed those responsible for his undeserved troubles over the years, and eventually was killed by state troopers.

Brief outline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Drega

More details, but with a lot of nutjob rhetoric added in:

http://www.geocities.com/Northstarzone/drega1.html


The main idea was that Carl was unjustly victimized by the government. In his last confrontation with government officials, his concealed firearm was used to 'get the jump' on them. If you buy into the 'people defending the country from tyranny' idea, tactics say that people will not be herded around into concentration camps; rather, they will individually be picked out in public, when they are most vulnerable and less likely to have access to a firearm. Since longarms are not practical to carry around everywhere, handguns are used to provide some firepower until one can fight his/her way back to a proper fighting weapon.

That's the theory, at least.

 

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by BDC2823

Your providing examples (including previous posts) based on weaponry that didn't even exist when the Second Amendment was written. An organized army and a local farmer had the same weaponry, except for cannons. If a militia of citizens rose against an organized army, they would be on equal footing as far as weaponry is concerned. My handgun's not gonna keep the government from tyranny but it would be a whole hell of a lot harder to tyrannize a whole country that was armed versus one that couldn't defend themselves. That's the point. Self- defense for the citizenry so they cannot easily be trampled upon.



fair enough - and this comes to the heart of my question:

in the world of the framers, a well armed farmer had the same or better weapons and training as the soldiers of the best army in the world. that isn't the case anymore.


so, what's the point? I am honestly trying to understand this. having handguns in private possetion doesn't give people the tools to prevent a government from becoming a tyrant, they have become (as far as I can tell) some type of magical amulets to remind us of the days when they were functional.

or, do you have a better explaination?

 

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by Ludeykrus

I lack the necessary equipment.

How many heart attacks have you had lately?

? ?

 

[Ludeykrus]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

? ?

First point: I do not have a ******, nor a womb.

Second point: How many heart attacks have you had lately?

Preemptive questioning: Assuming point two's answer is 'none', why do you think that is?

 

[redcaimen]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

.


so, what's the point? I am honestly trying to understand this. having handguns in private possetion doesn't give people the tools to prevent a government from becoming a tyrant, they have become (as far as I can tell) some type of magical amulets to remind us of the days when they were functional.

or, do you have a better explaination?

The difference in potency between modern military weapons and those available to the average citizen does indeed reduce the deterent effect an armed citizenry has against tyranny. Reduce it, not eliminate it. It still has value. The modern world has radio and television. People with the money can reach literally millions. People who dont have the money cant. While we all have the right to free speech we dont all have the power to broadcast our views to millions. Nonetheless the right to free speech and our exercising this right, no matter how small the audience, is more than just a magical amulet to remind us of the days when this right was "functional"

 

[Ludeykrus]

Prose.

 

[BDC2823]

fair enough - and this comes to the heart of my question:

in the world of the framers, a well armed farmer had the same or better weapons and training as the soldiers of the best army in the world. that isn't the case anymore.


so, what's the point? I am honestly trying to understand this. having handguns in private possetion doesn't give people the tools to prevent a government from becoming a tyrant, they have become (as far as I can tell) some type of magical amulets to remind us of the days when they were functional.

or, do you have a better explaination?[/QUOTE

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

It is much tougher to subject an armed populace to tyranny than it is to an unarmed populace. Armed citizens have the capacity to protect themselves against foreign and domestic aggression. For example, Hitler enforced gun control on the Jews and unarmed them. We know what followed.

Who knows what would have happened if the Jews were armed. It might not have made a difference. The question remains, If gun ownership doesn't prevent tyranny or at least deter it, then why did Hitler bother disarming the Jews? This shows that guns do prevent many forms of tyranny and shows how Hitler did have some fear of resistance or he wouldn't have bothered disarming them.

Look at the Iraq war. We're not exactly doing too well over there. Militarily, they aren't anywhere near as mighty as the U.S. They don't have the technology, weaponry, etc... But from talking with a friend who recently returned from Iraq, they have found ways to take out tanks, lob bombs, etc... with common items we could get from Home Depot. Of course we could drop a couple nukes and take out the country but what good would that do?

A government turned tyrannical on its own people is much in the same. They are looking to detain or take out much of the populace. But they're not going to be that destructive in doing so. What's the point in taking over an area if when you take it over its now a barren wasteland? They'd capture people in the same manner in which Hitler did. The populace's number far outweighs the governments, but if the populace can't defend themselves this need not matter. However, if the populace is armed and determined to defend themselves, this task is now very difficult. Not so easy to overtake people with bullets flying at you from all angles while severely outnumbered.

 

[globetrotter]

Look at the Iraq war. We're not exactly doing too well over there. Militarily, they aren't anywhere near as mighty as the U.S. They don't have the technology, weaponry, etc... But from talking with a friend who recently returned from Iraq, they have found ways to take out tanks, lob bombs, etc... with common items we could get from Home Depot.

exactly my point - if a person was serious about "protecting against tyrany" he wouldn't have a handgun, he would learn how to make explosives from fertalizer, and then how to make those explosives into mines.

in the dozen or so really successful campaigns against military occupations or tyranies of the past 100 years, personal firearms, handguns, hunting weapons and the like played no serous part. what did play a part was support with arms, training and logistics from a foreign army.


look, honestly, I am not really interested in arguing if there is a rational basis for thinking that personal arm ownership can help protect against tyrany - there isn't. but I apprectiate your efforts in explaining your position to me. for what ever reason, there are some people who are rational about most other things that believe that the 1911 in their dresser drawer does something to prevent tyrany. I was hoping that somebody could explain to me what that belief system was based on. I assumed that, like creationism, there was some model of belief that was not rational, but at least had some coherent logic.

 

[Ludeykrus]

So I guess the handgun being a means to fight your way to a 'serious arm' was not convincing enough?

Hell, then I guess everyone should be carrying around a ******* baby nuke in their backpacks. How else to preserve liberty?

 

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by Ludeykrus

So I guess the handgun being a means to fight your way to a 'serious arm' was not convincing enough?


no, but I am lumping pretty much all small arms together. what wins guerella wars isn't small arms, its communications and logistics coupled with light artilary and the ability to damage armor. I would be very interested if you could suggest an example of a successful, or even moderatly successful example of a civillian or guerella campaign in the past 200 years that didn't have access to those elements-

1. training by a foriegn army
2. logistics and communications provided by a governmentally raised and trained army
3. light artillary and either anti-tank weapons or high explosive mines
4. arms manufactured for and purchased by a governmental army


so, even having a 357 that helps you fight your way to a AK-47 still isn't going to help you fight an army, if you don't have an organized and hirarcial militia armed, trained and supplied by an army standing behind you.



look, religion is a valid belief system, and it isn't rational, it has some type of internal logic that is based on its own assumptions. while it is obvious that this whole line of thought is't rational, I am trying to understand the internal belief system.

of course, it could be as simple as just not being willing to accept that a collection of pretty pistols and shotguns can't stop a tank - that may also be a good reason why people with military background don't usually choose to accept this belief system I was expecting something with a little ore depth, though.

 

[JohnRov]

Originally Posted by scarphe

it may be the case that it is right granted by law or soem form of legal document, but calling the right to be able to own weapons a human right is absurd.

Please do at least a little research on the Constitution. There are absolutely NO RIGHTS GRANTED by the Bill of Rights. The BOR recognizes that man possesses these rights and that the government cannot infringe them. Granted by law? I don't even think the most liberal legal scholar would espouse that notion.

 

[JohnRov]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

fair enough - and this comes to the heart of my question:

in the world of the framers, a well armed farmer had the same or better weapons and training as the soldiers of the best army in the world. that isn't the case anymore.


so, what's the point? I am honestly trying to understand this. having handguns in private possetion doesn't give people the tools to prevent a government from becoming a tyrant, they have become (as far as I can tell) some type of magical amulets to remind us of the days when they were functional.

or, do you have a better explaination?

The problem with this argument is that it assumes this was the only reason to own firearms, and that is not the case if you examine the writings of the founding fathers. Firearms are used in self-defense many, many times every year.

 

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by JohnRov

The problem with this argument is that it assumes this was the only reason to own firearms, and that is not the case if you examine the writings of the founding fathers. Firearms are used in self-defense many, many times every year.

lok, we have had this discussion here many, many times. firearms for self defense is a falicy, too.

so the question in my mind is if there is something else?

 

[dah328]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

lok, we have had this discussion here many, many times. firearms for self defense is a falicy, too.
The following DOJ-commissioned study finds 1.5M instances of private defensive gun use per year:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

You are pretty adamant in your insistence that because guns may not be the best tool for self-defense in every situation, they are therefore ineffective for self-defense. That's demonstrably false. At some point, your continued insistence on this in the face of evidence to the contrary has got to call your objectivity on this matter into question.

 

[Ludeykrus]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

lok, we have had this discussion here many, many times. firearms for self defense is a falicy, too.

so the question in my mind is if there is something else?

Your assertion is a fallacy. You have been provided plenty of evidence showing that guns in the hands of Citizens helps decrease crime and that gun control does not lower crime. Please refer to the above DOJ link discussing actual statistics and numbers, not anecdotal evidence. Then please refer to Augusto's (I know you remember that one

) thread on 'Unbiased, Scientific Gun Control Studies? '. The last page contains my contribution of all relevent scientific, qualitative, and quantitative studies (that I could fairly quickly dig up in my college's resources) on gun control and gun proliferation in the U.S. and other countries. The strong trends are hard to argue with:

http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.p...&postcount=153


Now I believe the ball is in your court.