|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Actually many insurgents are/were armed with rather ancient weaponry (Iraq is a good example of this.)
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_062405_Quigley,00.html
Besides which it is not military conflict that is stopping the Americans, it is guerrilla warfare style tactics. The original Iraq army under Saddam had military grade weapons and training and yet it was swiftly smashed by the American forces. |
(1) Those weapons are not what cause the US troops so much trouble; it's explosives like IEDs and rocket launchers, which as far as I am aware, no one here is arguing all citizens should be packing.
Besides, you're kind of missing the point, since these are mostly not weapons people owned for protection,
(2) they were brought into the country by other nations and groups supporting the insurgency and looted from the Iraqi and coalition military forces. The success of the insurgency was enabled by outside support.
(3)Even the fighters themselves were largely mujahideen from other countries. If it was just Iraqi citizens and whatever semi-automatic weapons they might have legally owned, they would not be nearly as threatening. |
(I took the liberty of editing your reply and numbering certain points for clarity as it seems you misunderstood my first reply.
1. I already said that it was guerrilla-style warfare which gave the Americans so much trouble...that would include IED's and rocket launchers. I never said it was the guns.
2. The link states clearly that those are the weapons commonly found on and used by insurgents against U.S troops...not these state-of-the-art weapons you imagine them to have. Again most of these rifles are outdated and antiquated.
3. That is simply not accurate. The majority of insurgents are from the Sunni population in Iraq. Sure there are a number from other countries but they do not make up the majority as you are attempting to claim. (less than 2000 if we take the larger number)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/23/iraq.ewenmacaskill
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7353
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency
Unless you have better sources than the CSIS, I would suggest withdrawing from this discussion until you have done some fact-checking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution."
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html
That quote is from the debates in Congress about including a right to keep and bear arms in the proposed Bill of Rights. It was really about the distribution of military power in a society. They feared what could happen if the newly created federal government had control of a large, powerful military. Fast forward to our own day and the nightmare has already become a reality. The federal government has control of one of the most powerful militaries in the world and the citizen militia is a thing of the past. Interestingly, the firearms that would be of greatest military use (such as machine guns) are the most restricted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| duke of new york wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Actually many insurgents are/were armed with rather ancient weaponry (Iraq is a good example of this.)
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_062405_Quigley,00.html
Besides which it is not military conflict that is stopping the Americans, it is guerrilla warfare style tactics. The original Iraq army under Saddam had military grade weapons and training and yet it was swiftly smashed by the American forces. |
(1) Those weapons are not what cause the US troops so much trouble; it's explosives like IEDs and rocket launchers, which as far as I am aware, no one here is arguing all citizens should be packing.
Besides, you're kind of missing the point, since these are mostly not weapons people owned for protection,
(2) they were brought into the country by other nations and groups supporting the insurgency and looted from the Iraqi and coalition military forces. The success of the insurgency was enabled by outside support.
(3)Even the fighters themselves were largely mujahideen from other countries. If it was just Iraqi citizens and whatever semi-automatic weapons they might have legally owned, they would not be nearly as threatening. |
(I took the liberty of editing your reply and numbering certain points for clarity as it seems you misunderstood my first reply.
1. I already said that it was guerrilla-style warfare which gave the Americans so much trouble...that would include IED's and rocket launchers. I never said it was the guns.
2. The link states clearly that those are the weapons commonly found on and used by insurgents against U.S troops...not these state-of-the-art weapons you imagine them to have. Again most of these rifles are outdated and antiquated.
3. That is simply not accurate. The majority of insurgents are from the Sunni population in Iraq. Sure there are a number from other countries but they do not make up the majority as you are attempting to claim. (less than 2000 if we take the larger number)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/23/iraq.ewenmacaskill
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7353
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency
Unless you have better sources than the CSIS, I would suggest withdrawing from this discussion until you have done some fact-checking. |
1. If guerrilla warfare tactics using IEDs is how civilians can fight against an army, then this does not support the right to bear arms, since being able to make IEDs is not related to owning guns. This is only relevant if you are arguing for the right for civilians to own explosives and bomb making materials.
2. I did not say they had state-of-the-art weapons. I said they have fully automatic machine guns, as opposed to the semi-automatic or single-shot firearms legal in most of the US. But this is completely beside the point, which is that these are mostly not weapons that everyday people had in their homes for protection. They were obtained by looting or supplied by other nations. This does not support the right to bear arms because a legal right to bear arms was not necessary to arm these people. If there is a violent uprising or civil war in a country, people can get guns. I guarantee you there would be plenty of countries and organizations going out of their way to arm the US insurgency if there was a conflict between the American people and their government.
3. Please do not put words in my mouth. I said the insurgency was largely mujahideen. Largely does not mean the majority, just a significant part. They may be smaller in number than local Iraqis, but they are more well-trained and better armed, and their tactics (e.g., suicide bombing) do disproportionately more damage than those of the local forces.
The whole point behind my post, which you are skirting, is that there is not much of a link between the strength of the Iraqi insurgency and the right to bear arms. Yes, they have guns and other weapons, but it wasn't really loose gun laws under the Saddam regime that put them in their hands.
Anyway, since we're talking about people having the power to overthrow their government, what do you have to say about the revolution in Egypt? Regimes can be toppled without firearms. As much damage as they might have caused, the Iraqi insurgency could not really even be called successful; the government the US set up is still in power. The gun-less revolution in Egypt has been much more successful in achieving its goals. Doesn't this support the idea that a peaceful uprising can often be more effective than an armed one? I don't agree with gun rights advocates who try to make it sound like an unarmed populace is powerless against tyranny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
[
3. Please do not put words in my mouth. I said the insurgency was largely mujahideen. Largely does not mean the majority, just a significant part. They may be smaller in number than local Iraqis, but they are more well-trained and better armed, and their tactics (e.g., suicide bombing) do disproportionately more damage than those of the local forces.
. |
I am NOT putting words in your mouth. Here is the dictionary definition of largely.
| Quote: |
large�ly (l�rjl)
adv.
1. For the most part; mainly.
|
As we see the first definition we get is MAINLY/the most part which means the majority.
Even if you mean a significant part you are still wrong. There were estimated to be between 20,000-30,000 insurgents and less then 2000 foreign fighters as my links shows...less than a tenth.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/largely
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:43 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
[
1. If guerrilla warfare tactics using IEDs is how civilians can fight against an army, then this does not support the right to bear arms, since being able to make IEDs is not related to owning guns. This is only relevant if you are arguing for the right for civilians to own explosives and bomb making materials.
2. I did not say they had state-of-the-art weapons. I said they have fully automatic machine guns, as opposed to the semi-automatic or single-shot firearms legal in most of the US. But this is completely beside the point, which is that these are mostly not weapons that everyday people had in their homes for protection. They were obtained by looting or supplied by other nations. This does not support the right to bear arms because a legal right to bear arms was not necessary to arm these people. If there is a violent uprising or civil war in a country, people can get guns. I guarantee you there would be plenty of countries and organizations going out of their way to arm the US insurgency if there was a conflict between the American people and their government.
3. Please do not put words in my mouth. I said the insurgency was largely mujahideen. Largely does not mean the majority, just a significant part. They may be smaller in number than local Iraqis, but they are more well-trained and better armed, and their tactics (e.g., suicide bombing) do disproportionately more damage than those of the local forces.
The whole point behind my post, which you are skirting, is that there is not much of a link between the strength of the Iraqi insurgency and the right to bear arms. Yes, they have guns and other weapons, but it wasn't really loose gun laws under the Saddam regime that put them in their hands.
Anyway, since we're talking about people having the power to overthrow their government, what do you have to say about the revolution in Egypt? Regimes can be toppled without firearms. As much damage as they might have caused, the Iraqi insurgency could not really even be called successful; the government the US set up is still in power. The gun-less revolution in Egypt has been much more successful in achieving its goals. Doesn't this support the idea that a peaceful uprising can often be more effective than an armed one? I don't agree with gun rights advocates who try to make it sound like an unarmed populace is powerless against tyranny. |
1. Except that I was not arguing for gun rights in order to fight against a superior military in the first place. Talk about putting words in other people's mouths... What I was taking exception to was your UNSOURCED and UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that the insurgents have mostly modern military style hardware.
My link clearly proves otherwise. Either post a link and not more unsupported claims or I shall consider this point won.
2. Again I'm going to have to ask you for a link to back up your claims that they are being supplied on a more or less consistent basis (it would have to be more or less consistent in order to replenish supplies)
3. I've already addressed this. The dictionary agrees with me.
I haven't addressed the link between the strength of the insurgency and the right to bear arms as that was not my point to begin with. I simply disagreed on the quality of the hardware.
As for Egypt that was only successful because the army sided with the protestors and refused to support the president. Indeed they pushed him from office. Not a very good example.
| Quote: |
| Egypt, the most populous country in the Arab world, erupted in mass protests in January 2011, as the revolution in Tunisia inflamed decades worth of smoldering grievances against the heavy-handed rule of President Hosni Mubarak. After 18 days of angry protests and after losing the support of the military and the United States, Mr. Mubarak resigned on Feb. 11, ending 30 years of autocratic rule, as the military stepped forward and pushed him from office. |
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/egypt/index.html
Once again will you kindly sir, please, please do some fact checking before you post? I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that people are posting from an informed position and it is tedious to explain basic facts (see the NYT link) when a few minutes on Google could give you what you want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
1. Except that I was not arguing for gun rights in order to fight against a superior military in the first place. Talk about putting words in other people's mouths... What I was taking exception to was your UNSOURCED and UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that the insurgents have mostly modern military style hardware.
My link clearly proves otherwise. Either post a link and not more unsupported claims or I shall consider this point won.
2. Again I'm going to have to ask you for a link to back up your claims that they are being supplied on a more or less consistent basis (it would have to be more or less consistent in order to replenish supplies) |
Excuse me if I attributed this opinion to you wrongly. Many other posters have been trying to argue for this point, and I may lumped you in with them by mistake.
But as far as substantiating my claims that the insurgents have modern military weapons, I didn't source it because I thought this was common knowledge. Here a just a few sources for my claims. It literally took me about 15 seconds on Google to find these.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1542559/Iraqi-insurgents-using-Austrian-rifles-from-Iran.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303763404576420080640167182.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm
This is exactly the kind of ordnance I was talking about.
| Quote: |
3. I've already addressed this. The dictionary agrees with me.
|
"Largely" is just an adverb formed from the word "large," which doesn't mean "most," it means...large. Different dictionaries define it differently; for example, dictionary.com says both "to a great extent" and "chiefly," so rather than argue about semantics, can we just accept that I meant the former of those? Perhaps I made a poor word choice, but I am not and was not arguing that most of the insurgent fighters in Iraq are foreign. I'm sorry for any confusion.
| Quote: |
I haven't addressed the link between the strength of the insurgency and the right to bear arms as that was not my point to begin with. I simply disagreed on the quality of the hardware. |
Point taken, but this is a thread about gun rights. You'll excuse me if I assumed that by disputing my points you were taking the opposite side on the issue.
| Quote: |
As for Egypt that was only successful because the army sided with the protestors and refused to support the president. Indeed they pushed him from office. Not a very good example.
| Quote: |
| Egypt, the most populous country in the Arab world, erupted in mass protests in January 2011, as the revolution in Tunisia inflamed decades worth of smoldering grievances against the heavy-handed rule of President Hosni Mubarak. After 18 days of angry protests and after losing the support of the military and the United States, Mr. Mubarak resigned on Feb. 11, ending 30 years of autocratic rule, as the military stepped forward and pushed him from office. |
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/egypt/index.html
Once again will you kindly sir, please, please do some fact checking before you post? I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that people are posting from an informed position and it is tedious to explain basic facts (see the NYT link) when a few minutes on Google could give you what you want. |
I am well aware of the role of the army in the Egypt regime change. I lived part of my life in Egypt, it is a very dear country to me, and I have many friends and even family there, so I have stayed well informed of the events that have been happening there.
The military turned against Mubarak because of the people's protests. Who's to say the same thing wouldn't happen in a massive protest in the US? It is a perfectly good example in that it would not have really helped the Egyptians if they had guns. If anything, violence on their part would have turned international opinion against them and consolidated support for the regime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Are you implying the insurgency in Iraq was (is) fought with the same kinds of weapons available to the general public in the US? You know, they have assault weapons, rocket launchers, and SA missiles? They have looted military ordnance and have almost certainly been supplied with weapons by Iran. It has nothing at all to do with owning semi-automatics or hunting rifles like people do in the US.
|
This is my original statement about the difference between the Iraqi insurgency's weapons and those of the American public, just so you can see that I did not say they were state-of-the-art or equal to the coalition forces. I said specifically what kind of ordnance is used, all of which is supported by the links I provided. The point behind all of this is that the arms of the insurgency are not the same as the arms that American citizens have the legal right to bear, which I believe is what you implied when you said,
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The problem is still there, even more so than ever, but the right to bear arms doesn't make sense anymore because wars are not fought in the same way they were 200 years ago. In the American Revolution, the American side was made up of everyday folks, and they were fighting a national military, but the two sides were not all that differently advantaged. The British army was better trained and had better quality equipment, but at the end of the day it was just guys with rifles shooting at other guys with rifles. On the other hand, if Americans went to war with their government today, it would be guys with rifles against guys with fully automatic assault weapons, missiles with targeting systems, grenade launchers, fighter jets, armored vehicles, GPS (which the government can choose to restrict from common use), and all kinds of other sophisticated technology that James Madison could never have imagined. In short, it would be literally impossible for citizens to fight the US Armed Forces in this era. |
I believe more than a few Iraqi vets would disagree with that. |
I just don't want there to be any confusion about anyone's points. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
1. Except that I was not arguing for gun rights in order to fight against a superior military in the first place. Talk about putting words in other people's mouths... What I was taking exception to was your UNSOURCED and UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that the insurgents have mostly modern military style hardware.
My link clearly proves otherwise. Either post a link and not more unsupported claims or I shall consider this point won.
2. Again I'm going to have to ask you for a link to back up your claims that they are being supplied on a more or less consistent basis (it would have to be more or less consistent in order to replenish supplies) |
Excuse me if I attributed this opinion to you wrongly. Many other posters have been trying to argue for this point, and I may lumped you in with them by mistake.
But as far as substantiating my claims that the insurgents have modern military weapons, I didn't source it because I thought this was common knowledge. Here a just a few sources for my claims. It literally took me about 15 seconds on Google to find these.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1542559/Iraqi-insurgents-using-Austrian-rifles-from-Iran.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303763404576420080640167182.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm
This is exactly the kind of ordnance I was talking about.
. |
Your first link talks about a number of sniper rifles...about 800 or so. Given the number of insurgents that is a drop in the bucket. As for the second and third link there is no hard proof....simply claims which are disputed (see the third link).
Notice that it is the Iraq Study Group making the claim in the third link which has displayed a shallow ignorance about how things work in Iraq
| Quote: |
The ISG went astray when it recommended that the U.S. should:
Invite Iran and Syria to play a greater role in Iraq. As Senator Joseph Lieberman noted, "Asking Iran and Syria to help us succeed in Iraq is like your local fire department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the fire. These people are flaming the fire."[1]
Iran and Syria have been very much part of the problem in Iraq and cannot be trusted to be part of a genuine solution. Both seek to inflict a decisive foreign policy defeat on the U.S., and both seek to throttle democracy in Iraq because it would pose an ideological threat to the survival of their repressive regimes. Syria's President Bashir Assad leads the world's only Baathist regime after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Assad has harbored high-ranking Iraqi Baathist leaders who continue to finance and direct diehard Baathist insurgents inside Iraq. Syria also allows radical Islamic movements to funnel militants, money, and weapons to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups operating in Iraq. Iran provides money, arms, sophisticated bombs, and training to Shiite militias, including Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, which has staged two bloody uprisings against U.S.-led coalition forces. |
As we can see they seem rather clueless about the politics over there so we should take anything they say with a grain of salt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| [ The gun-less revolution in Egypt has been much more successful in achieving its goals. Doesn't this support the idea that a peaceful uprising can often be more effective than an armed one? I don't agree with gun rights advocates who try to make it sound like an unarmed populace is powerless against tyranny. |
| duke of new york wrote: |
| I am well aware of the role of the army in the Egypt regime change. I lived part of my life in Egypt, it is a very dear country to me, and I have many friends and even family there, so I have stayed well informed of the events that have been happening there. |
Then if you are so well informed you should have not made the first claim. The only reason that this "peaceful rising" or "gun-less" revolution was successful is because it was supported by the people who DID have guns (the army).
You've also argued that civilians couldn't stand up against the army...so peaceful rising or no peaceful rising it still isn't going to work. But if we can take a few of the bully boys out here and there...they are going to think twice about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can buy that single-shot 50 caliber sniper rifle here. But if you want to upgrade, I'd recommend this one which is fed by a 5 round magazine. I mean, you might as well buy American, right? The nice thing about the 50 is that it will defeat any soldier-worn armor and is even capable of disabling aircraft and light vehicles.
If you need help converting your U.S. purchased AK-47 to full auto, you can look here. Though I'll admit that's a lot easier if you have a license to own the parts, rather than having to fabricate them. Also, you may not be aware, but most of the U.S. military uses semi-auto 9mm pistols. But if you really want to make that full auto, it's even easier than the rifle. Also of note: the military is barred by the Hague Convention against using the expanding ammunition which is both circumstantially more lethal and widely available to civilians. I'm sure your google-fu could find some instructions for effective incendiary devices, IEDs, and other nasties as well.
I'll admit that I couldn't whip you up any shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. But I think we've got at least the start of a healthy resistance movement above, don't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
You can buy that single-shot 50 caliber sniper rifle here. But if you want to upgrade, I'd recommend this one which is fed by a 5 round magazine. I mean, you might as well buy American, right? The nice thing about the 50 is that it will defeat any soldier-worn armor and is even capable of disabling aircraft and light vehicles.
If you need help converting your U.S. purchased AK-47 to full auto, you can look here. Though I'll admit that's a lot easier if you have a license to own the parts, rather than having to fabricate them. Also, you may not be aware, but most of the U.S. military uses semi-auto 9mm pistols. But if you really want to make that full auto, it's even easier than the rifle. Also of note: the military is barred by the Hague Convention against using the expanding ammunition which is both circumstantially more lethal and widely available to civilians. I'm sure your google-fu could find some instructions for effective incendiary devices, IEDs, and other nasties as well.
I'll admit that I couldn't whip you up any shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. But I think we've got at least the start of a healthy resistance movement above, don't you? |
Unless he's changed his mind through this thread, I think DoNY's answer would be: its not even enough to fend off a squadron of the local police. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is the last post I am going to make in this thread. It's not that I am mad you guys or anything--I think we have all been pretty respectful--but the discussion is just getting derailed to where we are talking more about the Iraqi insurgency specifically than the actual merits of the right to bear arms. I think everyone has made their points pretty thoroughly, so we can probably just let it rest. It's not as if anyone was going to change their mind based on this anyway.
The only reason I said anything about Iraq is because somebody brought it up as an example of how armed citizens can successfully fight a standing army. I think the links I provided give some general background on the material support Iran and other countries have provided the Iraqi insurgency. I did not intend for the articles to account for every foreign weapon in Iraq, they are just examples. Iran and others have brought in various weapons at various times. If you want me to source every instance of weapons being provided to Iraqis...then just no. I provided three solid articles, which I think was thorough enough for our purposes. If you want more evidence, do the research yourself.
I brought up Egypt as an example of a country's citizens standing up to their government without weapons and succeeding. It doesn't matter if the army was responsible. It was in response to the peaceful demonstrations, and the right to bear arms had nothing to do with it because guns are and were banned for civilians in Egypt. It shows that a government whose people do not have guns can still be kept in line in accordance with the people's will. In this case, it was much more effective than a bloody revolution.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Unless he's changed his mind through this thread, I think DoNY's answer would be: its not even enough to fend off a squadron of the local police. |
Do not speak for me. If you don't have anything to add other than mocking other posters, then please do not post anything at all.
I never said anything like this. Of course you could kill some police with even the simplest firearms. What I said was that it doesn't matter. You can't just kill some police and then be free from them. You would be hunted down. If it was necessary, the state would use heavier armor and firepower against you. And those weapons are not enough to fend off a SWAT team, an armored vehicle, a helicopter, etc. My point is that the right to bear arms might protect you from a person or a small group of people, including police, but it will not protect you from the state: this is the central point I am making.
In summary: It is undeniable that owning a gun can be beneficial, but their use to balance power between citizens and their government is minimal. The danger and crime that come with widespread gun ownership far outweigh the minor, probably insignificant advantage it would give citizens who needed to overthrow their government, because of the inadequacy of common personal firearms compared to those of a modern standing army.
Feel free to have to have the last word. You guys can rebut me, and I will read it, but I'm not going to respond just because this is taking up too much of my time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| duke of new york wrote: |
The difference is this, and pay close attention because this is the whole point of the "fundamental rights" argument. You have the fundamental right to own something if it is necessary to sustain your life or a reasonable quality thereof. There are times and places where everyday people need guns to protect their lives. In these situations, it is a right. However, there are many places, such as South Korea, where it is totally unnecessary to own a gun for protection. There are many places in the world where it is unnecessary to own a gun, so it is not a right. If there are places where a right does not apply, it is not a fundamental right.
As for the "protection against the tyranny of the state" argument, I have already explained that the changes in weapons technology since the eighteenth century mean that the right to bear arms can no longer protect us from the government in the event armed conflict. It's not a fundamental right if it no longer makes sense because of a couple hundred years of technological advances. |
The 2nd Amendment reinforces the 4th Amendment. DoNY probably imagines the state to be located in Washington, DC and armed with drones and nuclear weaponry. But, the state also includes state and local officials. Actually, it is local officials who worry me the most. Local cops can be bullies, and it is they who are the most daily threat to the right to privacy. I am sorry, but the courts are sometimes a weak and insufficient protection against local officers who break into homes and otherwise abuse their office. Certainly, the modern reading of the 4th Amendment allows officers to invade your home, its just they cannot use the poisonous fruits against you in the courts. That's hardly protection enough against all possible police villainy. Indeed, this very phenomenon was discussed in McDonald v. Chicago. Justice Alito's opinion reminds us that the laws of several Southern states prohibited African-Americans from owning firearms. And we all know the terror they suffered at the hands of local police for the next hundred years.
I am not persuaded to trust local and state gov'ts when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative: assuring that, at the very least, individuals have the right to individual self-protection within the home. |
I think you are still making the mistake of thinking firearms are going to protect you from the police. If a cop illegally comes into your home, what are you going to do, shoot him? Are you going to shoot the rest of the cops who come to arrest you? If you kill them, are you going to fight off the SWAT team they send in to put you down?
While unscrupulous police are a very real problem, it's not a question of being armed as well as the corrupt cop. This isn't the wild west. Once you pick up a gun against the state, whether it's the police, the military, or public officials, you have made a decision that is almost certainly going to result in your death or imprisonment. |
^
DoNY, this was our earlier exchange. You responded to my clarification thusly,
| DoNY wrote: |
Kuros wrote:
Yes, the 2nd Amendment protects my home from police invasion, even if I don't own a firearm. The power of deterrence is quite powerful: local police know that if they walk into a home they could get blown away. I actually do not own firearms. But I am a fervent defender of the right to individual self-protection in the home.
And yet they do it anyway? The fact that it happens in spite of the right to bear arms shows that it is not much of a deterrent. |
You declare that because occasionally police do invade homes, that the defender's right to individual self-protection provides a weak deterrent. Apparently, you don't see the fallacy in this argument. You earlier declared that shooting at police is useless, because they will just come back in greater numbers. Apparently, you don't see what's wrong with this argument, either.
So I summarize your position (you are of course free to respond, and you did, indeed, I rather invited the response by stating "I think"), and then you single me out for being disrespectful (you first write -- I think we have all been pretty disrespectful -- but later you wrote -- if you don't have anything to add other than mocking other posters, then please do not post anything at all).
So you are welcome to explain how it is that the right to bear arms might protect you from a person or a small group of people, but it will not protect you from the state . . . even though the state is not a monolithic group and is an organization of individuals.
What I'm saying is, you're setting up the most ungenerous position for your opponents: we are NOT arguing that the right to bear arms allows one individual to go mano a infinitum against the entire state. Our argument should have been immediately apparent: the right to defend the home through individual self-protection has a multiplier effect when extended and exercised across the entire country. Thus, when a small squadron of local police invade a house, and the facts are revealed, the state does not organize itself, but instead inspects the facts and acts accordingly. It will not always be the case that the entire state mobilizes. Indeed, in the most important cases, when the individual had some grounds to protect his home, it is at least as likely that the State will uphold the individual's right to self-defense as double-down on other individuals' transgressions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
T
I brought up Egypt as an example of a country's citizens standing up to their government without weapons and succeeding. It doesn't matter if the army was responsible.. |
I'm sorry but this makes no sense whatsoever. If the army had supported the government it would likely still be in power today. In fact it was the army that was the deciding factor not the people...who were largely ignored by the government until the army told them that they had to go. In other words the people with guns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The fact is guns can be both necessary and unnecessary for the a revolution. It depends on the circumstances. Saying guns are necessary or unnecessary is oversimplifying things.
Non-Cooperation in India. is perhaps the best example of how guns are unnecessary. But Non-Cooperation was dealing with an overextended foreign power, not a domestic tyrant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
