http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/15/you-need-guns-to-overthrow-a-government Comments On: You Need Guns to Overthrow a Government? by Eli Sanders en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 21 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Tue, 21 May 2013 04:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Dead politicians soon]]> Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:16:23 -0800 The Stranger
Small arms absolutely CAN take on a larger military force.

Get this through your heads:
The long history of the ability of motivated insurgent groups with large caches of small arms to disrupt government institutions and fracture societies IS A REASON FOR GUN CONTROL. Not a reason to be against it.
Posted by tkc]]> Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:32:42 -0800 The Stranger Posted by liberty4all]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:48:35 -0800 The Stranger Posted by carsten coolage]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:14:15 -0800 The Stranger
So you guys trust that this ever shrinking power class is incorruptible?? I can only hope that some right-wing nut jobs out there are squirreling away tanks and missile launchers in a mountain bunker.
Posted by carsten coolage]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:09:27 -0800 The Stranger Posted by McGee]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:44:17 -0800 The Stranger
What the "guns prevent tyranny" crowd doesn't realize is that we aren't living in a pastoralist archetype anymore, this is the 21st century. The 2000 election was an "American style" coup, and no one managed to stop it. The slide towards a fascist police state, as Spindles here mentions, has been going on the legal, corporate-ownership, and media fronts... American-style. Soft invasion. Not the "we'll invade your land and house our soldiers in your homes" situation that personal guns would actually be useful against. Also, America is a huge land, not very easy to effectively rally the entire nation to any single cause, let alone "opposition" to "tyranny", even if we could decide what "tyranny" actually looked like. Hell, people can't even agree on common words used in political arguments (eg. "socialism"), shur as shootin' we're not gonna agree on confrontin' tyranny.

We have and can build other (social) tools to confront the abuses of power. In fact, I believe that the show of force against the Occupy protests belies exactly how scared they are.
Posted by treacle]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:24:51 -0800 The Stranger
Say, what does the failed coup in Bahrain and the successful coup in Egypt (resulting in a military dictatorship) have in common?: They were both backed by the CIA. Ever heard of Amber Lyon? You should probably Google her.

And while I agree that even with the highest percentage of private gun ownership in the United States, this has not prevented the country from sliding into a fascist police state, it might just be prudent to own a couple firearms for defense as we continue to deteriorate into third world nation.
Posted by Spindles]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:23:55 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fnarf]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:56:30 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Emilio Ballardo]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:52:03 -0800 The Stranger Posted by blip]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:41:21 -0800 The Stranger
Then why wasn't Chavez deterred? Why the Patriot Act? Why did Bush suspend habeas corpus? Where is the evidence that guns deter oppression? How come it's the states with all the guns that with laws saying they will kick in your bedroom door to check to see if you're having gay sex? What good did all those guns do in preventing anit-sodomy laws from being overturned by the federal government?

@30

Chavez routinely rewrote the Constitution to give himself more power, and packed the courts with favorable judges, and purged anybody who stood up to him. And all those Venezuelan guns didn't scare him one bit.

Or consider Saddam Hussein. Also one of the most heavily armed countries anywhere. Why didn't all those armed Iraqis deter Saddam?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:49:06 -0800 The Stranger
I don't think the guns Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr used in their duel had anything to do with a militia, either (and yes, it was illegal to duel in New Jersey - though Aaron Burr was never prosecuted for it - but their right to individually own guns was never questioned. Because, like it or not, individual ownership of firearms was exactly what most of the founding father types thought the 1st Amendment protected).
Posted by The Bill of Rights was about people, people.]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:37:48 -0800 The Stranger
Well, let’s look at what the contemporaries of the founding fathers understood its intention to be.

Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833. Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote:

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:11:58 -0800 The Stranger
Gun argument aside - the above statement by Sullivan is B.S. Chavez has been democratically elected and re-elected numerous times. Venezuelan elections are heavily monitored by international watchdogs and are actually cleaner than U.S. Elections. It's one thing for a hack like Sullivan to spread this type of misinformation - http://hpronline.org/online/hprgument-bl… It disappointing that it gets uncritically repeated by Eli and "The Stranger."
Posted by CC-Rob]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:54:14 -0800 The Stranger https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id--ZFtj…

It's baffling that people take Andrew Sullivan seriously. He's like a dancing bear with fashion-catastrophe eyeglasses.
Posted by Che Guava]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:45:30 -0800 The Stranger
People like guns to collect, or use for hunting, or go target shooting. It's a hobby.

Insurance, background checks, registrations, fine, I'm all for it.

What's the point of this stupid post? Oh, that's right, to rile up emotional nonsense again so you guys can sell more ads. Great job. You've succeeded in getting the usual people to make their usual comments. Again. And nothing further has been gained.

Next pointless, rabble-rousing gun post should be arriving in 5... 4... 3... 2.......
Posted by Urgutha Forka]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:42:58 -0800 The Stranger "Free speech and free assembly - and their exercise even when they were not protected by law - are what allowed the Arab Spring to succeed."

So then why protect them by law if that protection interferes with our ability to regulate them adequately enough to stop Hollywood and the gaming industry from perpetuating their culture of violence.

By you own admission, the exercise of speech and assembly will occur (if necessary in the face of tyranny) regardless of the protection of those "rights" by law.

By you argument, the rights protected by the 2nd amendment are unnecessary in the face of tyranny (because guns are not useful) and the protections afforded by the 1st amendment are unnecessary in the face to tyranny (because speech and assembly will happen regardless). Why then not remove both the barriers to regulating guns and the violent speech that drives young men to use them?

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:38:05 -0800 The Stranger If you can't legally buy a tank, or a warplane, or a missile launcher—and you can'tYes you can. Arnold Schwarzenegger owns his own tank: http://now.msn.com/arnold-schwarzenegger…

You can buy a Military PT boat from Hammacher Schlemmer: http://www.hammacher.com/Product/12127?p…

This argument that you can't buy machine guns and tanks and so forth is incorrect and tired, and you credulous hacks continue to trot it out time and again. Please get your facts right.
Posted by Urgutha Forka]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:30:02 -0800 The Stranger
Peaceful revolution is obviously preferable for all involved, but is only possible when the government doesn't resort to all out force. In that case, guns in private hands do help. I don't know the details of gun laws in Bahrain, but they do require a license and other regulations:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region…

I don't expect the average oppressed citizen is able to acquire such a license, and most private firearms are in the hands of the ruling class.

I would never make the claim that civilians could directly take on the US (or pretty much any) military and be successful, but direct confrontation isn't really the point. The existence of the means to resist can offer a deterrent to action, preventing it all together. Sure, an oppressive government can subjugate it's people with the military, but at what cost? Power ultimately comes from the capability to use force, and if you can use that force at little cost you are more likely to do so. By providing a check, even if marginal, it creates a much higher barrier.
Posted by Amnt]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:25:29 -0800 The Stranger
Okay then, argue it.
Posted by emor]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:21:22 -0800 The Stranger
Free speech and free assembly - and their exercise even when they were not protected by law - are what allowed the Arab Spring to succeed. So on the value of your various amendments to protect against tyranny, the score is at least First Amendment 2 - Second Amendment 0.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:20:23 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:19:12 -0800 The Stranger
Arguably the ACLU’s overly broad interpretation of the 1st amendment is as much a contributor to gun violence (if not more so) than the NRA’s overly broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment. When will pressure be brought to bear on the ACLU to stop killing our children???
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:14:45 -0800 The Stranger
What makes you say our troops are disloyal? It's a serious accusation.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:47:27 -0800 The Stranger