Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, June 25, 2009
News Rethinking My Hatred of the Second Amendment
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Protesters in Iran throw rocks as riot police shoot at them with guns:
As I've said before... American gun nuts are always going on about how they need their guns to protect their rights as 'mericans. But the only right gun nuts seem remotely interested in protecting with their guns is their right to own guns. Second Amendment fans would find lots of allies on the left—particularly among supporters of the First Amendment—if they functioned as the armed wing of the ACLU. If the gun nuts turned out in force whenever someone's free speech rights were being violated—or the right to assemble or the sacred right to be left alone—more of us on the left might regard the social costs an armed-and-dangerous citizenry as worthwhile.
Video via—or course—Sullivan.
1
Owning a gun doesn't necessarily make you more dangerous than being married makes you monogamous. Or maybe it's the other way around?
You'd be surprised how many lefties I know who own guns. Including, but not limited to, nearly every lesbian I'm friends with.
You'd be surprised how many lefties I know who own guns. Including, but not limited to, nearly every lesbian I'm friends with.
2
Yeah whenever people go on and on about the 2nd Amendment being for crime prevention or sportsmanship I have to roll my eyes. The 2nd Amendment is why it would be difficult for a racist, fascist government to round up American inner city blacks and throw them in a concentration camp. It's there for those futuristc, apocalypyic, Margaret Atwoodian scenarios. AKA we don't want Bush's henchmen to be the only ones allowed to have guns--not defending Bubba's pitbul and snowmobile.
3
See? The second amendment is meant, in its final form, to PROTECT citizens against an oppressive government.
4
I always thought the American cultural divide on guns was (mostly, but not always) an urban/rural thing.
If you live in the country, guns are for keeping mountain lions from eating your kids. Or whatever. Basically, for people living in a lot of places, there are legitimate reasons to want one that have nothing to do with fighting crime or 'the man' when he comes for your rights. (Although on the crime issue, I can also see that argument making much more sense when you don't live within a mile of a police station.)
If you live in the city, guns are for killing people.
All that being said, it would be pretty bad ass if the NRA would become the militant wing of the ACLU.
If you live in the country, guns are for keeping mountain lions from eating your kids. Or whatever. Basically, for people living in a lot of places, there are legitimate reasons to want one that have nothing to do with fighting crime or 'the man' when he comes for your rights. (Although on the crime issue, I can also see that argument making much more sense when you don't live within a mile of a police station.)
If you live in the city, guns are for killing people.
All that being said, it would be pretty bad ass if the NRA would become the militant wing of the ACLU.
5
Dream on, Dan. In 'merica the cops will always outarm the people. And the military will always outarm the cops.
6
Dan, it's a shame that you're being facetious, because yes, that is the exact reason why the framers considered gun ownership a right. And yes, self-defense is a right as well. Or maybe you were expecting your friendly police department to be there for you?
7
The beautiful thing about the 2nd amendment is that you have no idea how many people in the ACLU do carry guns. The guns are not registered and may be concealed so who are you to say the ACLU is not armed to the teeth. I can personally vouch to several friends who are members of the ACLU and the NRA.
8
Hey Dan - I know you're a Northern urban liberal and all, but.. It would be REALLY great if you could distinguish between "gun nuts" and gun-owning citizens. There is, actually, a quantitative gulf of difference between the two, and it would actually help your arguments re guns if you could demonstrate your awareness of this fact (through your language choices).
9
If the protesters in Iran had guns, the situation would be hugely MORE dangerous and violent, not less. The protesters are explicitly NOT resorting to firearms, which they could have done, because going up with rocks against guns gives you the moral high ground. If they had guns, they'd be mowed down instantly in vastly greater numbers. The plain fact is, you CANNOT protect your rights with guns unless you are prepared to move into open civil war, not protesting. War is something that the Iranian protesters would definitely lose. Look at the bombers in Iraq; how are they faring in the progress towards reaching their goals? Not one bit.
Similarly, if the NRA became, as you suggest, the "armed wing of the ACLU", the ACLU (and the NRA) would immediately become illegal, and all of its members would be arrested or shot dead in the street, the Bill of Rights would be suspended, and we'd all lose.
Armed insurrection is a dead end. It is counterproductive. In an advanced society, it doesn't have a fucking chance; NOR SHOULD IT.
Sullivan can be clever sometimes but other times he's a testosterone-poisoned blowhard. There's a certain kind of male for whom the answer is always GUNS. These people think they're "protecting their rights", but they're not; they're advocating the destruction of civilization.
Similarly, if the NRA became, as you suggest, the "armed wing of the ACLU", the ACLU (and the NRA) would immediately become illegal, and all of its members would be arrested or shot dead in the street, the Bill of Rights would be suspended, and we'd all lose.
Armed insurrection is a dead end. It is counterproductive. In an advanced society, it doesn't have a fucking chance; NOR SHOULD IT.
Sullivan can be clever sometimes but other times he's a testosterone-poisoned blowhard. There's a certain kind of male for whom the answer is always GUNS. These people think they're "protecting their rights", but they're not; they're advocating the destruction of civilization.
10
Fantasists, all of you. You are never going to use your second amendment rights to block tyranny or protect Americans or prevent people from being rounded up; that's PURE FANTASY. All of you "pry them from my cold dead fingers" idiots are suffering from a disease.
11
"But the only right gun nuts seem remotely interested in protecting with their guns is their right to own guns."
See, this is the one assertion that seems to keep me from being a true-blue liberal. I (used to) have a very clear image from my farm upbringing of a gun as just another tool in the workshop (albeit a dangerous one - somewhere above the circular saw on the hierarchy of things-that-can-kill-you to a kid): if you have something valuable and moveable - in our case, livestock - people will try to steal it from you & you need a way of warning those scumbags off. Same reason you put rat traps in the barn. And same reason that if I moved back there as I am now - a single out-ish young queer lady - I would have a gun on hand (on hand being securely locked up, of course).
I had no idea about all of the crazy people with guns - or the general perception of all people with guns being crazy people with guns - until I started reading newspapers in the city.
See, this is the one assertion that seems to keep me from being a true-blue liberal. I (used to) have a very clear image from my farm upbringing of a gun as just another tool in the workshop (albeit a dangerous one - somewhere above the circular saw on the hierarchy of things-that-can-kill-you to a kid): if you have something valuable and moveable - in our case, livestock - people will try to steal it from you & you need a way of warning those scumbags off. Same reason you put rat traps in the barn. And same reason that if I moved back there as I am now - a single out-ish young queer lady - I would have a gun on hand (on hand being securely locked up, of course).
I had no idea about all of the crazy people with guns - or the general perception of all people with guns being crazy people with guns - until I started reading newspapers in the city.
12
"The guns are not registered and may be concealed so who are you to say the ACLU is not armed to the teeth." Hahah, what? You know there's no federal 'registration' for guns, right? Also, CCW is dependent on state laws; you can't just do it willy-nilly.
And yeah, I agree, Dan. Too many gun owners are too focused on their obsession. I'm a liberal atheist that just happens to own 7 guns, but after about a year of being very into them as a hobby, I've lightened up a bit. I know a lot of liberal people who own guns, but I think the fact is that the majority of the politically active owners are the ones who are socially retarded, as it were. Hence why I am loathe to even identify myself as a gun owner, usually, and even then with many caveats/disclaimers.
And yeah, I agree, Dan. Too many gun owners are too focused on their obsession. I'm a liberal atheist that just happens to own 7 guns, but after about a year of being very into them as a hobby, I've lightened up a bit. I know a lot of liberal people who own guns, but I think the fact is that the majority of the politically active owners are the ones who are socially retarded, as it were. Hence why I am loathe to even identify myself as a gun owner, usually, and even then with many caveats/disclaimers.
14
It works both ways, Dan. I'm a gun carryin' librul on the west coast. When's the last time you saw a bunch of us liberal types rally to stop stupid firearms restictions?
15
Yup, Fnarf, it's a disease alright, and it's called "not being a sheep." And I'm proud to be afflicted with it.
If the shit ever hits the fan (and I'm not saying it's going to), people like you would be the first ones to go. But I guess it's good to know who would be willing to stand up and fight for something worth fighting for, and who would roll over and ask to have their tummy rubbed.
If the shit ever hits the fan (and I'm not saying it's going to), people like you would be the first ones to go. But I guess it's good to know who would be willing to stand up and fight for something worth fighting for, and who would roll over and ask to have their tummy rubbed.
16
Fnarf makes the point. If you want to fight back with guns you have to be ready to do it 100% and be prepared to have the rains wash your remains away into the gutter. Most Americans can't bring themselves to vote. They sure as poop won't bother to pick up a gun to let their voice be heard.
17
Fnarf nailed it. It's a staggering delusion to think that 1) the government is suddenly going to become totalitarian and that 2) armed citizens are then going to rise up and overthrow it.
With very few exceptions guns are for lazy macho men. It's much more difficult, and more effective, to take an active part in our society. Vote, speak up in public, have a conscience. Put your expectation out there that people are going to behave in a civilized way.
With very few exceptions guns are for lazy macho men. It's much more difficult, and more effective, to take an active part in our society. Vote, speak up in public, have a conscience. Put your expectation out there that people are going to behave in a civilized way.
19
"Put your expectation out there that people are going to behave in a civilized way."
Wow, somebody's been dipping into the good drugs. Maybe like George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney behaved in a civilized way. Or all that "civilization" the Ayatollahs in Iran are showing right now. Yeah, people are so civilized, dontcha know.
Wow, somebody's been dipping into the good drugs. Maybe like George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney behaved in a civilized way. Or all that "civilization" the Ayatollahs in Iran are showing right now. Yeah, people are so civilized, dontcha know.
20
The ACLU teaming up with the NRA wins the stupidest idea of the day award. Take a nap, Dan, and after you wake up, spend a little bit of time thinking about why paramilitary organizations are a bad idea.
But I guess it's good to know who would be willing to stand up and fight for something worth fighting for, and who would roll over and ask to have their tummy rubbed.
Oooh, a tough-talking keyboarder, you make me so moist!
But I guess it's good to know who would be willing to stand up and fight for something worth fighting for, and who would roll over and ask to have their tummy rubbed.
Oooh, a tough-talking keyboarder, you make me so moist!
21
@14 As am I...
Fnarf you have the typical misguided liberal opinion on this issue. The true purpose of the 2nd amendment — one that modern-day Americans forget at their peril — was to protect us not from private thugs but rather from government ones.
Don’t forget that revolutions are, by their very nature, wars against one’s own government. Keep in mind that when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson revolted against England in 1776, they were British, not American, citizens. At various times throughout history, people have taken up arms against their own government because of what they considered to be nasty and brutal acts that their own officials had committed against them.
Historically, the biggest threat to the freedom and well-being of a people has lain not with some foreign government but rather with their own government. And as Thomas Jefferson pointed out in the Declaration of Independence, if a government “crosses the line” by engaging in overly tyrannical conduct against its own citizens, it is the right of the people to meet force with force, even to the point of violent revolution.
Violent revolution and resistance to tyranny, however, require an essential ingredient — weapons. In the absence of weapons, there is only one course of action in the face of government brutality — obedience. A disarmed society is an obedient society, a society in which, at the extreme, people obey their own government’s orders to follow the line into the gas chambers.
This point was recently reflected by what Fidel Castro said about the U.S. government’s raid on the home of the Miami relatives of Elián Gonzalez. He commented that his forces would not need to be armed to conduct a similar raid in Cuba because Cuban citizens are not permitted to own guns. What he failed to say, of course, is that because of gun control, the Cuban people also lack the means to overthrow the gun-toting communist thugs who rule over them.
“But in America, our leaders are democratically elected. We are the government. There’s nothing to fear here.” But given the proper circumstances, a democratically elected government can be even more tyrannical than a totalitarian one. Remember: the very purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect us from our own democratically elected government officials!
When citizens are well-armed, government officials must think twice before going too far down the road to tyranny against the citizenry.
Thus, the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is the best insurance policy that the American people could have against tyranny.
Something for you to chew on...
More...
Fnarf you have the typical misguided liberal opinion on this issue. The true purpose of the 2nd amendment — one that modern-day Americans forget at their peril — was to protect us not from private thugs but rather from government ones.
Don’t forget that revolutions are, by their very nature, wars against one’s own government. Keep in mind that when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson revolted against England in 1776, they were British, not American, citizens. At various times throughout history, people have taken up arms against their own government because of what they considered to be nasty and brutal acts that their own officials had committed against them.
Historically, the biggest threat to the freedom and well-being of a people has lain not with some foreign government but rather with their own government. And as Thomas Jefferson pointed out in the Declaration of Independence, if a government “crosses the line” by engaging in overly tyrannical conduct against its own citizens, it is the right of the people to meet force with force, even to the point of violent revolution.
Violent revolution and resistance to tyranny, however, require an essential ingredient — weapons. In the absence of weapons, there is only one course of action in the face of government brutality — obedience. A disarmed society is an obedient society, a society in which, at the extreme, people obey their own government’s orders to follow the line into the gas chambers.
This point was recently reflected by what Fidel Castro said about the U.S. government’s raid on the home of the Miami relatives of Elián Gonzalez. He commented that his forces would not need to be armed to conduct a similar raid in Cuba because Cuban citizens are not permitted to own guns. What he failed to say, of course, is that because of gun control, the Cuban people also lack the means to overthrow the gun-toting communist thugs who rule over them.
“But in America, our leaders are democratically elected. We are the government. There’s nothing to fear here.” But given the proper circumstances, a democratically elected government can be even more tyrannical than a totalitarian one. Remember: the very purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect us from our own democratically elected government officials!
When citizens are well-armed, government officials must think twice before going too far down the road to tyranny against the citizenry.
Thus, the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is the best insurance policy that the American people could have against tyranny.
Something for you to chew on...
24
The black panthers toted around loaded rifles in the 60s to prove similar points. You don't fuck with an armed populace.
25
@19: I'm referring to the vast majority of peoples actual lives (unlike the fantasy you live in) where people stand around in fear of anyone who seems to be confrontational or the least bit threatening, i.e. uncivilized.
Go to a country store some time and start running your city-dwelling foul mouth off. Everyone in the place will tell you to take it back where you came from. This is in contrast to the urban behavior of keeping your head down and not getting involved even though someone is getting punched out right next a group of half a dozen adult male bystanders.
The desire for a gun is nothing more than the fantasy that you can just push a button and be dominant and safe. LAZY. MACHO. BULLSHIT.
Go to a country store some time and start running your city-dwelling foul mouth off. Everyone in the place will tell you to take it back where you came from. This is in contrast to the urban behavior of keeping your head down and not getting involved even though someone is getting punched out right next a group of half a dozen adult male bystanders.
The desire for a gun is nothing more than the fantasy that you can just push a button and be dominant and safe. LAZY. MACHO. BULLSHIT.
27
Every one of the protesters is risking their lives already. Those that survive the protests still face the prospect of being disappeared in whatever aftermath there is to this movement. The Basij are cowards, assaulting isolated pockets of the opposition and then zipping away before the crowds can surround them. An armed populace might make them less likely to assault even lone citizens.
28
Gandhi had it right. Getting your ass kicked while sticking to your demand for justice is the way to get results. The peaceful protesters in Iran have the right idea. Their government is feeling the pressure.
29
I'm about as libtard as anyone else in Seattle. But I applied for my CCW because I keep reading about folks minding their own business getting their heads kicked in while waiting for the bus. Better to have it and not need it than to need it an not have it.
30
Kresblamania @25: Thanks for proving that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Clearly you don't know the first thing about me, and anyone who does would find your statements laughable.
But enjoy life in your little fantasy world. Say hello to the flowers and all those characters from the Disney movies who live there from me.
But enjoy life in your little fantasy world. Say hello to the flowers and all those characters from the Disney movies who live there from me.
33
The second amendment is meant, in its final form, to PROTECT citizens against an oppressive government.
Not for you to have the right to take your gun into public parks and start firing randomly or to serve your own justice. I've always said the original purpose was so that if the government got too big we could fight back, then the IRS got machine guns and it's been pretty much over from there.
Not for you to have the right to take your gun into public parks and start firing randomly or to serve your own justice. I've always said the original purpose was so that if the government got too big we could fight back, then the IRS got machine guns and it's been pretty much over from there.
35
merry@8: Ditto.
Referring to everyone who enthusiastically owns a firearm as a gun nut is inconsiderate and lowers my opinion of you, Dan. Is it really necessary to paint all of those who participate in the culture of guns as being mentally unstable? (which is a disqualifying condition for carrying a gun in some circumstances, btw)
As someone who has sworn an oath to defend the constitution of the United States, I consider it my duty to exercise the rights guaranteed by that document. This includes owning and carrying a firearm as well as speaking freely supporting others in doing so. I would prefer to live in a world without violence where gun ownership was unnecessary, but I consider that a greater fantasy than that described by Fnarf@10
Referring to everyone who enthusiastically owns a firearm as a gun nut is inconsiderate and lowers my opinion of you, Dan. Is it really necessary to paint all of those who participate in the culture of guns as being mentally unstable? (which is a disqualifying condition for carrying a gun in some circumstances, btw)
As someone who has sworn an oath to defend the constitution of the United States, I consider it my duty to exercise the rights guaranteed by that document. This includes owning and carrying a firearm as well as speaking freely supporting others in doing so. I would prefer to live in a world without violence where gun ownership was unnecessary, but I consider that a greater fantasy than that described by Fnarf@10
36
@21:
220 years ago this argument might have made sense, when citizen militias and the military were on a more-or-less equal footing in terms of the type of ordinance each carried. However, the notion that an armed citizenry in this day-and-age would stand even a snowball's chance against a massively equipped modern military force is simply ludicrous to the point of delusion.
Seriously, what do you think your chances are going to be when you pit your Glock 17 or Sig Sauer and four or five boxes of ammo against a platoon of highly trained soldiers sporting a standard issue of body armor, M16A2 or M-4 rifles, M249 SAWS, M9 pistols, flash-bang, frag & smoke grenades, bayonets, and probably at least double or even triple front-line ammo reserves?
Oh, right, and THEN they bring on the machine guns, mortars, rocket launchers, IFV's, ACV's, M109 Paladins, tanks, and air support.
Any nut-job militia type who thinks their piddly arsenal is going to be anything more than a temporary annoyance in the (admittedly rather unlikely) event of a committed, sustained, determined military incursion on their "territory" will discover that Ruby Ridge was a veritable picnic compared to what they're going to encounter.
220 years ago this argument might have made sense, when citizen militias and the military were on a more-or-less equal footing in terms of the type of ordinance each carried. However, the notion that an armed citizenry in this day-and-age would stand even a snowball's chance against a massively equipped modern military force is simply ludicrous to the point of delusion.
Seriously, what do you think your chances are going to be when you pit your Glock 17 or Sig Sauer and four or five boxes of ammo against a platoon of highly trained soldiers sporting a standard issue of body armor, M16A2 or M-4 rifles, M249 SAWS, M9 pistols, flash-bang, frag & smoke grenades, bayonets, and probably at least double or even triple front-line ammo reserves?
Oh, right, and THEN they bring on the machine guns, mortars, rocket launchers, IFV's, ACV's, M109 Paladins, tanks, and air support.
Any nut-job militia type who thinks their piddly arsenal is going to be anything more than a temporary annoyance in the (admittedly rather unlikely) event of a committed, sustained, determined military incursion on their "territory" will discover that Ruby Ridge was a veritable picnic compared to what they're going to encounter.
37
"Standard issue of body armor, M16A2 or M-4 rifles, M249 SAWS, M9 pistols, flash-bang, frag & smoke grenades, bayonets, and probably at least double or even triple front-line ammo reserves?"
You've been peeking in my gun safe, haven't you? But you must have missed the .50 BMG and 20 mm.
You've been peeking in my gun safe, haven't you? But you must have missed the .50 BMG and 20 mm.
38
@36 seems to me paramilitaries in Iraq armed with little more than AKs and improvised explosives have done a fine job holding their own against very well equipped Marine and Army forces.
39
@ Everyone, Thanks for the food for thought. This isn't an issue I think about. I don't have a problem with guns, and it doesn't bother me that some people choose to own them either. I tend to see guns as tools, a tool I do not choose to own.
40
Yeah @38, but that's also because there's been a (relatively speaking) "kid gloves approach" in terms of not wanting to, you know, blow up too many civvies in the process of "pacifying the insurgency".
In the "Turner Diaries" fantasy scenario the wing-nuts envision, the U.S. government is engaging in all-out war with its own citizenry, in which case what one would expect to occur would be much more akin to what's currently happening in Iran, namely, that a totalitarian government isn't going to worry all that much about offending "world opinion" when it comes to violently suppressing their own population.
Which leads me to -
@37:
I'll see your .50 BMG & 20 mm and raise you one GBU-12 "Snakeye" 500 lb. laser-guided smart-bomb dropped on your basement "bunker" from an F-16.
Problem solved. On to next delusional gun-nut.
In the "Turner Diaries" fantasy scenario the wing-nuts envision, the U.S. government is engaging in all-out war with its own citizenry, in which case what one would expect to occur would be much more akin to what's currently happening in Iran, namely, that a totalitarian government isn't going to worry all that much about offending "world opinion" when it comes to violently suppressing their own population.
Which leads me to -
@37:
I'll see your .50 BMG & 20 mm and raise you one GBU-12 "Snakeye" 500 lb. laser-guided smart-bomb dropped on your basement "bunker" from an F-16.
Problem solved. On to next delusional gun-nut.
42
@15, no, it's YOU who will be first to go, because YOU are the one who will be running out into the street with some kind of firearm, and the cops will just lob a mortar at you and there won't even be a wet spot on the pavement. And the neighbors will all shake their heads and go "always thought there was something off about that feller".
Armed insurrection is a ludicrous fantasy. Don't talk to me about Thomas Jefferson; talk to me about Oklahoma City and Waco and Ruby Ridge and the Montana Freemen; hell, talk about the Whiskey Rebellion if you want. Black Panthers? The Black Panthers were PATHETIC, laughable, feeble-minded nothings parading around in total fakery.
Armed insurrection is quite simply not part of the picture in the modern world. People who think it is are living in a movie version of reality, which is closely allied to a movie version of masculinity. It's a MENTAL ILLNESS. If the government goes in a totalitarian direction, armed insurrection doesn't stand a prayer against them. Popular democracy does. It's the ONLY thing that does.
The notion that the Iranian protesters would be in a better position if they took up arms is the most incredibly stupid and wrongheaded thing I've heard in quite a while. They may not succeed; they may be another Tienanmen Square. But if they brought in guns they'd be massacred on the spot, every last one of them.
Your way leads to mindless brutality and savagery, to the American Civil War, to war in Congo, to the car bombs of Baghdad, not to freedom. The notion that guns play any role at all in our freedom is insane and anti-historical. There's an argument for private ownership of guns, but that ain't part of it.
Taking up arms to protect yourself against the United States, IN the United States, is always, always, always going to put you on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, the wrong side of your neighbors, and the wrong side of a hole in the ground. The world doesn't work that way. High Plains Drifter isn't real.
More...
Armed insurrection is a ludicrous fantasy. Don't talk to me about Thomas Jefferson; talk to me about Oklahoma City and Waco and Ruby Ridge and the Montana Freemen; hell, talk about the Whiskey Rebellion if you want. Black Panthers? The Black Panthers were PATHETIC, laughable, feeble-minded nothings parading around in total fakery.
Armed insurrection is quite simply not part of the picture in the modern world. People who think it is are living in a movie version of reality, which is closely allied to a movie version of masculinity. It's a MENTAL ILLNESS. If the government goes in a totalitarian direction, armed insurrection doesn't stand a prayer against them. Popular democracy does. It's the ONLY thing that does.
The notion that the Iranian protesters would be in a better position if they took up arms is the most incredibly stupid and wrongheaded thing I've heard in quite a while. They may not succeed; they may be another Tienanmen Square. But if they brought in guns they'd be massacred on the spot, every last one of them.
Your way leads to mindless brutality and savagery, to the American Civil War, to war in Congo, to the car bombs of Baghdad, not to freedom. The notion that guns play any role at all in our freedom is insane and anti-historical. There's an argument for private ownership of guns, but that ain't part of it.
Taking up arms to protect yourself against the United States, IN the United States, is always, always, always going to put you on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, the wrong side of your neighbors, and the wrong side of a hole in the ground. The world doesn't work that way. High Plains Drifter isn't real.
43
"But the only right gun nuts seem remotely interested in protecting with their guns is their right to own guns."
The operative phrase being "their right". I've said for years that if you want to see wingers do a 180 on the right to keep and bear arms just watch when liberals start arming themselves.
There's a gay gun group..."Pink Pistols". Long long ago I used to be on their mail list, but it got to be too much like reading alt.fan.rush.limbaugh. Then they invited a notorious Usenet homophobe, Clayton Cramer...a guy who kept insisting among other things that homosexuals were child molesters...to speak at one of their conferences, and I dropped out.
The operative phrase being "their right". I've said for years that if you want to see wingers do a 180 on the right to keep and bear arms just watch when liberals start arming themselves.
There's a gay gun group..."Pink Pistols". Long long ago I used to be on their mail list, but it got to be too much like reading alt.fan.rush.limbaugh. Then they invited a notorious Usenet homophobe, Clayton Cramer...a guy who kept insisting among other things that homosexuals were child molesters...to speak at one of their conferences, and I dropped out.
44
@37
oh, you've got a big rifle? If you had a fucking M1A1 tank I would place my bets on the US military. I would place my bets on one trained soldier armed with a 9mm pistol. They spend a trillion dollars a year on weapons and training.
Unfortunately, protecting our rights from our government is immensely more complicated than having a big gun in your basement.
oh, you've got a big rifle? If you had a fucking M1A1 tank I would place my bets on the US military. I would place my bets on one trained soldier armed with a 9mm pistol. They spend a trillion dollars a year on weapons and training.
Unfortunately, protecting our rights from our government is immensely more complicated than having a big gun in your basement.
45
A lot has been said here, so I'm going to try to cover what has not been said, or maybe what hasn't been said enough.
Regarding Iran: The Green Revolution remains a protest, which is to say it is attempting to continue political change within (or at least while preserving) the structure of the state. It hasn't been entirely peaceful since protesters have already been throwing rocks, which incites a response escalation, but the chaos has served as leverage used by the Sea of Green to compel the Guardian Council to give it consideration. Should the Council reject the Revolution's demands, it will either turn into a resistance effort or an outright insurrection. But until it does, the protest should not involve guns, or really, even rocks.
Regarding the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights: Its primary function continues to be protection of the people from threats, both domestic and abroad, especially including the rise of tyranny, and encroachment by the state into human rights.
As the US Occupation of Iraq and the Global War on Terror continue to prove, the might of the US military is not immune, or necessarily even effective in the conditions of asymmetrical warfare against partisans or a resistance effort. Granted, we have the power to kill the enemy with unmatched precision and magnitude, when we know where the enemy is. It is, however, a lot more difficult to destroy an enemy that has infiltrated a civilian populace, especially when our greater priority is the preservation of that populace. Like terrorists, the more the occupying state encroaches on the rights and comfort of the common people, the easier it is for the resistance to recruit.
This is, incidentally, why there is no military solution to the War on Terror.
Guns are not necessary to preserve this power of the people, but they do accelerate the resistance when it needs to happen. And they do serve as a reminder of Napoleonic law to our representatives: that they rule only so long as we consent.
More...
Regarding Iran: The Green Revolution remains a protest, which is to say it is attempting to continue political change within (or at least while preserving) the structure of the state. It hasn't been entirely peaceful since protesters have already been throwing rocks, which incites a response escalation, but the chaos has served as leverage used by the Sea of Green to compel the Guardian Council to give it consideration. Should the Council reject the Revolution's demands, it will either turn into a resistance effort or an outright insurrection. But until it does, the protest should not involve guns, or really, even rocks.
Regarding the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights: Its primary function continues to be protection of the people from threats, both domestic and abroad, especially including the rise of tyranny, and encroachment by the state into human rights.
As the US Occupation of Iraq and the Global War on Terror continue to prove, the might of the US military is not immune, or necessarily even effective in the conditions of asymmetrical warfare against partisans or a resistance effort. Granted, we have the power to kill the enemy with unmatched precision and magnitude, when we know where the enemy is. It is, however, a lot more difficult to destroy an enemy that has infiltrated a civilian populace, especially when our greater priority is the preservation of that populace. Like terrorists, the more the occupying state encroaches on the rights and comfort of the common people, the easier it is for the resistance to recruit.
This is, incidentally, why there is no military solution to the War on Terror.
Guns are not necessary to preserve this power of the people, but they do accelerate the resistance when it needs to happen. And they do serve as a reminder of Napoleonic law to our representatives: that they rule only so long as we consent.
47
Very few people here have so far theorized on any sort of actual military action - you know, action where the important factors are not so much the size of your guns, but mobility and tactics. The way guerrillas manage to stave off defeat in countries like Iraq or Chechnya isn't through having the latest guns, it's through hit-and-run tactics and an expendable body count. The strategy is to simply outlast the enemy, not to defeat it in battle. That's where having a gun does help - but it really doesn't matter what kind of gun.
Outlasting an oppressive regime in the US, however, would take a very long time. The regime will only collapse after it runs out of money(as it did in the USSR), which will at best take three or four generations. Until it starts collapsing, if you're going to go out and wave your guns around as a form of resistance, expect to be killed.
Outlasting an oppressive regime in the US, however, would take a very long time. The regime will only collapse after it runs out of money(as it did in the USSR), which will at best take three or four generations. Until it starts collapsing, if you're going to go out and wave your guns around as a form of resistance, expect to be killed.
48
Two quick points: Fnarf @9 for the win. He describes the situation accurately: An armed insurrection in this country will lose big, OR devolve into a terrible, years-long guerilla war that --even if successful-- will guarantee we end up with the military-controlled government that people fear so.
Ghandi-style peaceful resistance is the only viable solution. The history of revolutions bears this out. Yes, it will take a long time, but it is the single most effective method to ensure freedoms in the face of an unresponsive government.
Second: Typically, gun-control laws are about getting more dangerous automatic weapons off the streets. They are not written to take a man's rifle or carbine away. That is the NRA's old chesnut they rattle around to drum up membership and righteous indignation.
Ghandi-style peaceful resistance is the only viable solution. The history of revolutions bears this out. Yes, it will take a long time, but it is the single most effective method to ensure freedoms in the face of an unresponsive government.
Second: Typically, gun-control laws are about getting more dangerous automatic weapons off the streets. They are not written to take a man's rifle or carbine away. That is the NRA's old chesnut they rattle around to drum up membership and righteous indignation.
49
@47. Contrary to popular belief, the USSR collapsed due to Saudi Arabia increasing production four-fold in the 80's and plunging the price of oil to record lows. The USSR, heavily dependant on oil for currency, was dropped to it's knees.
Considering the economic mess we're in now, AND the rest of the world's vested interest in seeing the US dollar removed as the world's standard currency (and only oil-purchasing currency...), there's no guarantee that we won't see a collapse here anyway. Cross our fingers it doesn't, but really, there's only so-much that debt-backed-currency can do before everyone is saddled with more debt than all the money that exists.
Considering the economic mess we're in now, AND the rest of the world's vested interest in seeing the US dollar removed as the world's standard currency (and only oil-purchasing currency...), there's no guarantee that we won't see a collapse here anyway. Cross our fingers it doesn't, but really, there's only so-much that debt-backed-currency can do before everyone is saddled with more debt than all the money that exists.
50
That may have been the final push, Treacle, but the USSR was in a steady decline as soon as World War 2 was over. Saudi oil becoming cheaper just made the USSR economically collapse instead of morphing into something akin to China.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
-
Planned Parenthood Exposed! by David Schmader
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (50) RSS