This is a really poor argument. First, what's "tyrannical" to you? There are various degrees of "tyrannical", just as there are various degrees of terrorism. Can you expect the entire country of gun owners to react all at once? Because I have some evidence that suggests otherwise.
You're hoping for some "flipped switch" type of tyranny that never happens. Even Hitler's madness took place in phases and wasn't universally recognized as a threat.
This idea of immediate revolt is a fairy tale. One that other gun-less countries watch in awe. Don't you think its time to move on and concentrate on more important issues?
You're arguing that because people might not suddenly decide to revolt en masse that... what, exactly? That a revolution is therefore not possible, and that we should then give up the right to bear arms?
How ironic that you would accuse him of making a really poor argument when yours is about as poor as they come. I hope no one upvoted that drivel.
Your right to bear arms is silly. Incredibly silly and archaic. You live in 2013, not in colonial times. While the amendment made perfect sense then, it makes no sense now.
The pro-gun movement seems to be completely ignorant to the staggering evidence that guns in citizen's hands are unnecessary at the least and dangerous at the worst.
Society: an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
As the above dictionary definition suggests, a society is based on a collective set of ideas, rules and order so that all within the society can live peacefully. Remove the guns and the strange associated chest-thumping, less people die. It's really that simple.
You used to be able to drink and drive, until we all realized it was for the betterment of the society to change that. You lost that right, too. Guns are no different.
This doesn't prove guns solve problems. It just makes it clear that police can be incompetent. This is the most bizarre argument. You're argument is that police do a poor job, so average people should do the job? Here's an idea: spend some more money on creating a more competent police force. So silly! Let's see, my employee isn't doing his job well, so I'll just call in another developer to bring competency. Talk about spinning the tires.
Please, America. Spend some time wondering how other modern countries get by. You'll have no choice but to conclude it is possible to get by without guns.
That ignores the geographic disparity of our nation. It would be relatively easy to create a rapidly mobile police force in somewhere like New York City, but nearly impossible to create an efficient police force in Glendo, Wyoming. Houses are, at the closest, acres apart from each other. Going grocery shopping can be a half hour trip each way from a nearby farm.
Police cannot be readily available in places like this (or in New York really, but for entirely different reasons).
Yes, the US is so special. Again, other countries have sub-urbs, country residents. Come on, really? This is your defence? That America has vast countryside? Jesus fucking Christ. Can't think of any other country that has this geography? REALLY?
If you know of a way to increase the police force in a way that is efficient, affordable and repeatable such that people living 45 minutes away from the nearest police station would still be able to have relatively good assurance that said police would be there to stop crime from being done to them, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
In the absence of such knowledge, I think it's fair to point out that police are generally reactive. In the case of murder, they obviously weren't able to prevent the crime. As it stands, the sheer amount of crime we have speaks to the ineffectiveness of our existing police departments, and while they could almost certainly be made better, they can't likely be made perfect.
In the case of an assault against me, my home or my family, my call to the police is not going to be made until I have at least assured the relative safety of myself and mine enough that making a call would be prudent. This means that, if someone is pointing a gun at me, if you give me the choice of whether I should have a cell phone in my hand or a firearm, I'll take the latter. Police are the first responders, but I believe that self defense is a personal responsibility, especially as Warren v DC[1] concluded that the police aren't under any obligation to protect me, despite whatever slogans may be painted on their vehicles.
Of course, this ignores that nobody should have to defend their purchase of firearms in the US to anyone. It's a Constitutionally enumerated right, and according to our founders, a "natural, God-given right". Ignoring the theistic rhetoric, that means that I am able to possess a firearm, and most definitely for the purpose of self defense.
If you could figure out such a way that would prevent me ever needing to use a firearm for self defense, as well as ensuring a means to prevent government tyranny, then perhaps I would consider relinquishing that right. Until such time, I will exercise that right lawfully and responsible and hope that I never need to use a firearm in defense.
Do you think that people are fundamentally different than they were three centuries ago? Do people not still seek power? If the answer to the latter question is yes, then the right to bear arms is as relevant today as it has ever been.
You would throw away a peoples' right to defend themselves against an oppressive regime based on what, precisely? Your presumed ability to foretell the future? Your hunch that humanity has progressed beyond our base instincts?
If that is the case, then you are a fool, which would put you in good company with the rest of the anti-gun crowd.
Wow. I love the rhetoric, but it's glaringly flawed. You're suggestion: people are driven by their basic instincts, so...they should all have access to guns. Couldn't make a better case against guns myself.
Or is it that government is "special" and only the sort that would misplace their power? You do know the government is made up of citizens, right? Or do you think that once you get a government job you suddenly become vile? Would love your insight.
Again, your argument sits within the confines of American reality, while the rest of the world gets by. What paranoid, delusional scenario do you see playing out exactly? Your government/other regime turns against you...and what? The rest of the world just sits back and watches your government attack its people? Come on, man. Really?
You're the only modern country that thinks this way. Let that sink in for a bit.
Personally, I can't understand why you care about how 'we' handle guns in our country. I don't own a gun, but I appreciate the right for my fellow citizens. I don't care if you ban it in your country; why are you so interested in restricting freedoms of people on the other side of the world?
>The rest of the world just sits back and watches your government attack its people?
What are they going to do? Do you know how much we (the US) spends on military compared to the rest of the world? It's really no wonder that the citizens of such a country (not to mention drones, elective wars, and the "right" of the President to kill without trial) prefer to be able to own guns (as many as we can).
>You're the only modern country that thinks this way.
That's what Europeans have been saying to us for ~200 years (although, previously referring to things other than gun ownership). In other words, "What's wrong with having monarchies?"
> Personally, I can't understand why you care about how 'we' handle guns in our country.
I don't, really. But it is frustrating watching, oh, I don't know, 95% of the developed world somehow getting by without guns while the US can't see past them.
> What are they going to do? Do you know how much we (the US) spends on military compared to the rest of the world? It's really no wonder that the citizens of such a country (not to mention drones, elective wars, and the "right" of the President to kill without trial) prefer to be able to own guns (as many as we can).
You're hope of defending yourself against government (i.e. drones - which can attack from the sky, no less), is infantile, to say the least. Explain how you, a member of HN, plan to de-weaponize your government with your pistol.
> In other words, "What's wrong with having monarchies?"
That's great rhetoric, except I'm not advocating for monarchies. That's a straw man argument, because I've not once advocated for such a thing. And it's not a black and white subject. Not having guns doesn't automatically make you a monarchy. Suggesting such is ridiculous and provides a fruitless argument.
Actually, it is neither rhetoric, nor a straw man; I never suggested that you, specifically, advocated for a monarchy. However, back in the 18th century, many people in Europe probably would have (Canada and Australia certainly opted for dependence upon a monarchy).
My main point was to demonstrate that simply because other countries participate and subscribe to a certain way of doing things, does not mean it's the "right way to do it." I was not trying to put words in your mouth. Further, to suggest that the US should rid our society of guns is not realistic and betrays a significant lack of understanding of the prevalent culture in the US.
>Explain how you, a member of HN, plan to de-weaponize your government with your pistol.
Again, I do not own any gun, but if you would like to see how 'primitive' weapons can be used in defiance of powerful government, just look at Afghanistan or Vietnam.
Just so we are doubly clear, I would prefer if all destructive weapons were destroyed, including those of governments. I just don't think that's realistic at this time.
Yes, we are all flawed, and when one group of us gains the power to force another group of us do what they want, bad things tend to happen. That's why we have something called the decentralization of power through democracy - maybe you've heard of it?
This isn't some crazy conspiracy theory - it's basic history and common sense. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot: these are but a few of the sociopaths who aspired to power in the last century alone; the list of what happens when too few people gain too much power goes on and on and on. And you think that it can't happen here? That it will never happen here? Then you are a fool. You cannot imagine a world where the right to bear arms for the purpose of defending ourselves against oppression not because such a world is unlikely, but because you lack foresight and the ability to examine history and your fellow man with a critical eye. The world has been this way throughout human history, and it is still this way today. Fifty years of relative peace on a timeline of hundreds of thousands of years of near-constant oppression do not mean we have progressed beyond those baser instincts.
Guns are power; as such, the right to bear arms represents another form of the decentralization of power. If democracy fails, that final check will remain, and those who don't have their heads up their asses understand this relatively simple and basic truth.
I am very well traveled, and I am well aware of what the rest of the world thinks about American notions of freedom. I have given this issue much consideration, and after many hours of careful deliberation and argument parsing, I have come to the conclusion that the right to bear arms is one of the few aspects of American culture that I am vehemently in favor of. I don't care whether the rest of the world understands these concepts or not - I do, we do, and we are clearly not interested in giving this right up easily.
So if you don't like it, that's fine - no one's forcing you to abide by our rules (yet, heh). But if you think that this mindset is based on delusional thinking, paranoia, or anything other than sound reasoning; if you think that we are a bunch of gun-toting ignorant, overly aggressive, uncivilized assholes who're just too dumb to see things YOUR way, then please: allow me to kindly ask you to go fuck yourself.
Oh boy. What a great argument. Telling me to go fuck myself, and that you don't care what any one else thinks. Great rebuttal.
Do you think that the 11,000+ people who are killed with firearms are worthless? Because they are being killed by sociopaths, you know, the kind you list above.
You are alright with 11,000+ deaths (per year) because you feel, one day, maybe, there might be a possibility of a tyrannical government. That's not democracy, that's straight up lunacy. Get a straight jacket, my friend. Paranoia is abound.
We're living in 2013, where communication and technology live. You're living in a time where tyrannical ideas are put to rest swiftly due to intelligence, due process and strong desire for freedom. Not something witnessed in the timeframe of the nuts you listed. Get a tinfoil hat.
You're discounting the very people you claim to be vigilant, without realizing it.
You're hoping for some "flipped switch" type of tyranny that never happens. Even Hitler's madness took place in phases and wasn't universally recognized as a threat.
This idea of immediate revolt is a fairy tale. One that other gun-less countries watch in awe. Don't you think its time to move on and concentrate on more important issues?