Freedom from what?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Gun advocate: "...and yet it is possible for any government to become sufficiently corrupt and malevolent. Thus, the point of the second amendment."

All right, freedom-loving 2nd Amendment worshiping gun advocate. It is also possible that we're visited by aliens tomorrow. It's possible that we're hit by an asteroid and all of this stupid talk goes away, as we get reduced to clubs and stones again. Many things are possible.

But seriously. If your government really insists to become sufficiently corrupt and malevolent, you won't be able to prevent that with guns and rifles. You don't prevent corruption with guns. If your government becomes corrupt, something must've already gone terribly wrong in your society, and it's because you've let it happen. Shooting at the government or whatever you imagine "resistance" to be like, doesn't make the government benevolent. Besides, you can't possibly challenge the government war machine that you've already created, with these petty weapons. Unless you want to have tanks, missiles, fighter jets and bazookas, of course; and resort to full-out guerrilla terrorism. You want to fight special forces and the military with a couple of pistols? Be my guest. I'll be watching your epic heroism on CNN with great interest. You think the US is Libya where the government is armed with the same weapons like the people? No, it isn't. Really, it's not. Look around, how many military bases are in your state alone? You know how they're equipped, right?

I live in South Africa. The Resistance here resorted to sabotage during the time of Struggle, granted. But that's not what toppled the apartheid government. It was the mounting economic pressure from around the world that forced the oppressive government to step down. My father and his comrades could've continued their armed resistance indefinitely, and they'd be crushed if that hadn't been coupled with political, diplomatic and geopolitical isolation from the international forces that really mattered. No, guns don't bring down corrupt governments. Not in the most powerful military force in the world, anyway. I repeat, the US is not Somalia, and not Syria.

...And I thought the free-gun-access advocates were all about self defense. Now it's about toppling the government. So which is it?

Besides, wanting a more adequate control on who gets access to guns =/= banning weapons. There's a big difference there that I'm sure most people with two brain cells are very well aware of.

There are states where anyone could go to the gun store and buy a weapon. Anyone. Even kids. Meanwhile, you have to prove you're over 21 in order to buy a bottle of vodka. Does this make a lot of sense to you? Because to me it doesn't.

Damn. And I was intending not to get immersed too deep into this debate. :-/

Comments

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Not just freedom from what, but also freedom at what cost.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I wonder when it'll be appropriate to talk about this in the wake of the Pennsylvania shooting that happened just yesterday. Maybe we'll have to wait for another X days before the Code of Appropriateness changes from "STFU" through "No Way" through "somewhat greenish" to "slightly green".

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

I wonder when it'll be appropriate to talk about this in the wake of the Pennsylvania shooting that happened just yesterday.

It took approximately 0 days for the Republicans to jump on the Benghazi attacks with a battle cry of a witch hunt of Condoleeza Susan Rice. Despite a period of mourning out of respect for the dead, the NRA and other gun obsessed activists are ever at the ready to divert the blame away from their sacred guns.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

The next one to tell me how un-free I am for havnig all those comprehensive and adequate regulations on gun ownership over here in Sweden, is getting it. And it's not like Swedes don't love their guns.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

It is even worse than the philosophical questions. Our national research center on death and injury is all but FORBIDDEN to research gun violence and what can and cannot reduce deaths and injuries from guns.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470

All because the NRA's friends in Congress disliked the policy Implications of the data.

Forget gun control for a second and contemplate the need for public financing of elections. NO lobby no matter WHAT the interest should have the power to shut off research just because they lack the wit or the imagination to frame an intelligent policy discussion based upon the data. But the NRA threatens to support a primary challenge to a GOP Congressman and we lack any meaningful research on a question from our public health institution for over 15 years.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

You have pinpointed a huge oversight. But, I wonder, why haven't other equally reputable academic bodies stepped in to fill the breach, so to speak. Whither Harvard, Princeton, Yale? Of for that matter, the number crunchers at MIT? Or to be really subversive, why not foreign Universities with no axe to grind like Oxford, Cambridge, or the Sorbonne?

The NRA can't be paying them all off, can it? So what in heck is going on here? There are reputations to be made with this research, surely.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Philosophical issues aside, it usually all boils down to money.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

I would love nothing more than a Constitutional amendment banning ALL lobbying. That would be awesome!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You're using logic and reason, here. Neither the Internet nor real life are too kind to those who use either and expect people to listen, unfortunately. :/

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Nope, this is mostly a rant. When I get to use logic and reason, you'll know.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

its about coming up with whatever reasons they have to in order to not have to do anything inconvenient to be able to buy a gun. 

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

This.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

This all hinges on the question whether rights are understood to be something we have or whether they are bestowed upon us by someone else.

Focusing on self defense, the defense of others, hunting, or the overthrow of a tyranny are red herrings or varying degrees of fishy-ness. We have a right to bear arms in the same way we have a right to freedom of speech and religious conscience. I can think of about a hundred arguments for limiting free speech in the wake of the Newtown shootings. No one would seriously consider some "common sense" limits one the 1st Amendment. I hope.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

So, you agree that Mortal Kombat is at least as much responsible for mass shootings as the easy availability to weapons of mayhem? Besides, free speech is not an absolute right, even though the First Amendment is couched in more absolutist terms than the Second Amendment. The question is what is reaonable regulation.

Have we not talked this to death yet?

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Not about defense, tyranny or anything like that. It is about consumer choice.

Weapons, with some restrictions, are legal products, you can either accept and own, or deny and not own. Just choose, but you can't ban a legal product.

I, as a consumer, refuse to watch TV. However, when I am at a friends or out someplace where a TV is blasting, I can either accept the exposure, or choose to stay at home and avoid the exposure. But I don't have a right to ban TV's in public or demand they turn it off.

Guns, like Television broadcasts, are consumer products. And consumer have choices.

Another example: I may not want you smoking in my face in a public facility, but it is certainly not my superior collective right to ban your cigarettes, only to restrict the access to my face.

If you, as a consumer, do not feel comfortable with the concept that there may be smokers, television broadcasts or guns within your presence, then as a consumer, you certainly have the right to not go out, or to be selective about where you go within your fear/comfort level. This is about you and your low risk fears, not the gun owner.

This kid, like the other shooters of the past century, was a terrorist in the classic sense. And golly gee, looky how spooked everyone has gotten. *Clutches Pearls* oh dear, we must do something for the children!

Last month it was the 47%. Next month it will be Iran. This month it is guns. This is just all part of a news cycle, like Occupy.

When you knee jerks and insist on 'laws as solutions' to issues that have no solutions, you succumb to the will of the terrorist.

Re: Have we not talked this to death yet?

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Of course you can be legal things. You just make them illegal.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

One description of the difference between Russia and the US is how we view freedom. In the US it's freedom to.. while in Russia it's freedom from...

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

That is because we have the 9th amendment, for what its worth..

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

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Also as I said elsewhere, if your government becomes tyrannic it generally does so with the support of the population.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

So most of those tyrannical governments out there got that way through support of the people? I'm guessing there's over 30 million Stalin victims who would disagree. And a million or two Pol Pot victims. I wonder if the Egyptians would agree. Or the people of Burma. And all those jailed Cubans should stfu because thy supported...

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Besides, wanting a more adequate control on who gets access to guns =/= banning weapons.

And limiting where people can smoke != banning smoking. On the other hand, there are large outdoor areas where you can't smoke.

But since people are so pro anti-smoking and see that not as an example but as a good thing, let's try speech instead. Let's say they outlawed criticizing the President, but you could still criticize Congress, the press, both political parties, political organizations, etc. That wouldn't be banning free speech now would it?

The point be that "not banning" != fine.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

No anti smoking measures as you described are actual bans. What is it about cancer and copd that is so sacrosanct?

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

If your government becomes corrupt, something must've already gone terribly wrong in your society, and it's because you've let it happen.
Very good point. Those who complacently stand by as freedoms are slowly eroded and undermined have only themselves to blame when government control over their lives rises to the point where corruption and abuse is so firmly entrenched that resistance is almost hopeless. Don't let it happen. Words to live by.

You want to fight special forces and the military with a couple of pistols?
Do have any sources for gun advocates wanting to duke it out with the army? I have never heard about this school of thought. I have, however, heard of people wanting the right to defend themselves, their families and their homes against violent, armed criminals.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

too bad those people are of much higher likelihood of getting shot with their own guns, especially if.there women or children.

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

Two things:

1) That's not the point of the Second Amendment anyway. The Second Amendment was written to allow communities to defend themselves from criminals, pirates, and a vengeful Indian revanche.
1a) The vigilantes who carried off the Redemption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redeemers) did use force to overthrow the "carpetbaggers and scalawags"--but in order to impose minority, one-party rule. Hardly "defeating tyranny."
1b) Much of the rhetoric in this vein about gun rights descends from the Redeemers. By using it, you make yourself appear to be of their type.

2) Gun rights are not particularly effective as a defense against bad government. Ever try debating with a gun?
2a) The great danger here is that gun owners will mistake their firearms for a defense against "tyranny" and their continued ownership of firearms as a reason not to be concerned about lost civil liberties. Neither of these assumptions would be true.
2b) Thus, gun owners may be lax in allowing actual abusive practices by police and the state,
2c) and fail to use the democratic process effectively--except to hang onto their guns, which are more politically impotent in fact than in their fantasies.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

2a) The great danger here is that gun owners will mistake their firearms for a defense against "tyranny" and their continued ownership of firearms as a reason not to be concerned about lost civil liberties. Neither of these assumptions would be true.
2b) Thus, gun owners may be lax in allowing actual abusive practices by police and the state,

More freedom is less freedom.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Ha, this came across Facebook, these two folks are very pro fracking in Pennsylvania.





The face of Pennsylvania's pro-fracking lobbying efforts. " Energy In Depth - Northeast Marcellus Initiative "
Guns as fashion accessories! FAB!

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Good discipline though.

22 Rimfire carbine with fake can? Short of painting it pink could you find a more stereotypical "girl's gun"?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

There are states where anyone could go to the gun store and buy a weapon. Anyone. Even kids. Meanwhile, you have to prove you're over 21 in order to buy a bottle of vodka. Does this make a lot of sense to you? Because to me it doesn't.


This is incorrect.

The laws against selling or otherwise providing a firearm to a convicted felon, someone convicted of violent misdemeanor, someone who's been involuntarily committed, or a minor are all Federal and thus apply regardless of state law.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

What about a 16 year old teenager who's not a convicted felon? They've had a fight with another teenager over a girl, he goes to the gun store and buys a gun, then shoots the other guy. Very nice.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

It is pointless. All debate on the subject gets instantly blocked by the powerful interests of NRA and their friends in weapons business.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Not just debate, they also block all research into it.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Apparently, rights and freedoms (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/guantanamo-decade-damage-human-rights-2012-01-11) only matter when they're about Americans.

Or maybe that is not the case (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?_r=0) any more, either.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Watching Americans in a gun debate has to be like watching a room full of addicts being threatened to have their meth taken away...

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The problem is that here in America people like to hide behind a centuries-old document that emergent countries wouldn't touch with a 30-foot pole into terms of emulation. People cite the 2nd Amendment like it's a Bible verse. Something written on a piece of paper by a bunch of slave-owning bigots is not the moral compass we should be following, and any idea regarding gun control or whatever else should be done strictly on a cost/benefit analysis. If you believe in 'fundamental human rights', you're no different from a Bible literalist. Our rights are only determined by the current government regime and nothing else.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

That's what conservatism is about, after all. Never change anything, the old stuff must somehow be the "real stuff". It's been there for centuries, after all. That must mean it works perfectly even today, in the 21st century. Or something.

Meanwhile, congrats for coming out as un-American un-patriot! You dared to imply that the Founding Saints Fathers weren't infallible, now you're doomed to eternal damnation in the pits of Hell!

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

The point - you missed it.
An armed citizenry is a backstop against said government becoming that malevolent and corrupt in the first place, not just as a corrective measure after the fact.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Yeah, where was that armed citizenry when many governments in a row from both parties were gaining more and more ground one tiny step at a time? When was the noble citizenry when your governments sponsored or encouraged, or outright carried out coups against democratically elected leaders abroad who weren't convenient for their geopolitical agenda? When they were stomping on human rights across the world (and continue to do so) - what use were those weapons in the closet? Where were those armed citizens when your government got practically sold off to corporate interests, big bankers and big industry who then essentially started calling the shots? Did those armed noble citizens even notice how all this happened? Did they stop it from happening with their guns?

No, dude. I'm afraid you're the one missing the point. Just look at the biggest social and political accomplishments of your society, look back at the women's rights movement, MLK and all the rest. Those things weren't achieved because the government was somehow scared that people had guns. The best you can accomplish with gun-flood is blood-flood. You're way past the time where having an armed populace was supposed to be a guarantor for a more just society, a more transparent government and better harmony in society. I appreciate your idealistic approach, but for good or for bad, this is not the 18th century.

People have argued here that the 2nd Amendment is about self defense. Not about holding the government in check. And I'd agree with them. Again, I'm not in favor of repealing it, far from it. What I'm talking about is more adequate oversight on gun ownership. These are not toys, and no matter how sacrosanct your 2nd Amendment rights are for you, there should be oversight. You can't just wash guns over the populace, and rely that it'll handle the rest of it on its own. That's not reality, it's some libertarian pipe dream.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

OP- I will say only one thing in rebuttal:

Tyrants do not respond to sit-ins and angry letters. Tyrants only respond to force.

The 'noble victim' idea is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing the Left has ever come up with.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

The ridiculousness of the notion that you'll somehow topple your government with guns and rifles is beyond comprehension. It's a romanticized story probably ganked from heroic action movies that you guys keep watching on your TV.