4 ms·

It is surprising that nobody in this thread has mentioned what I thought was the most widely-acknowledged argument in favor of firearms ownership in the United

by avn2109 10y ago

It is surprising that nobody in this thread has mentioned what I thought was the most widely-acknowledged argument in favor of firearms ownership in the United States. In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. If, like me, you regard the encroachment of an unconstitutional American surveillance/police state as the primary threat to the way of life and values of the American people, this is a strong argument indeed. In fact I would like to see heavier, more military-flavored weapons proliferate for just this reason, especially since there are diminishing marginal returns for some types of arms escalation. E.g. armor piercing anti-tank weapons or surface-to-air weapons designed for hunting helicopters are not any more useful for shooting up a school than light guns chambered for NATO 7.62. But they have vastly different deterrent effects for a state actor contemplating violence against the populace. You might argue that this is stupid because if the situation ever devolves to the point of violent oppression, they will just drone strike dissidents' houses invisibly from the sky. But I like to think the main effect of an armed, freedom-loving population is to deter the country's leadership from instituting that level of violent oppression in the first place.

erichocean 10y ago
> In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. That's because the individuals who wrote the US constitution gave exactly that justification—though people (of course) argue whether or not it is still relevant. From my perspective, the 1st amendment had a similar justification, so if you really don't buy that _guns_ can keep the gov't in check in any kind of realistic way, clinging to "free speech" as something we absolutely need—for the exact same reason—rings hollow; it doesn't seem like a principled position to me to reject one and embrace the other.
- loukrazy 10y ago
  I definitely do not agree that the first and second amendment have similar functions. In practice it is the restriction on free speech that is a much more effective and pernicious way of controlling a population. If you have a heavily armed population, that does not dissuade a repressive government from attacking you, it just gets more and more people killed- see Syria.
  - erichocean 10y ago
    > If you have a heavily armed population, that does not dissuade a repressive government from attacking you, it just gets more and more people killed- see Syria. Syria is a great example—for the exact opposite belief that a lack of guns is a terrible way to deal with a repressive regime, and will get you and your family killed. Syrians are NOT "heavily armed", not even close. Syria is ranked 110th out of all countries in terms of "number of guns per capita".[0] USA has 28.8x (!) as many guns per person as Syria. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c...
- hackuser 10y ago
  >> In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. > That's because the individuals who wrote the US constitution gave exactly that justification The only explanation they gave was "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". It's a bit ambiguous, despite attempts to insist otherwise.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    But you only need to look at the first militia act to see that by "militia" they mean every able bodied man of age, and they should have a firearm of their own.
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      "Well regulated"
      - bbradley406 10y ago
        Misconstruing the phrasing of the amendment is a weak way to argue against it. At the time it was written, "well regulated" was commonly used to describe something that worked well, was in good repair, etc. A militia being "well regulated" (in modern English) by the government that it might need to fight is the opposite of that. http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
      - tracker1 10y ago
        Militia Act, not the article... if you look at the militia act, it specifically states that every able bodied male of age is part of said militia, and to provide their own arms. And you also miss the phrase "In order to" as in for example... it was only one of the reasons why the right to bear arms should not be infringed, not the only one. The bill of rights was at the time argued as superfluous as some felt that most people understood that those were inalienable rights and didn't need to be spelled out. Others felt otherwise (with foresight) and wanted stronger provisions, many of which were in the original Articles of Confederation the country was founded under before the Constitution.
tracker1 10y ago
By the same note, I don't see a handgun as being particularly less destructive in this instance... non-hollowpoint ammo fired into a crowd is more dangerous than full-jacket bullets... more deadly to those hit, but less to the people behind them. For me it's all about personal freedom. And since most people think the police and military are the only ones that should be allowed guns... I can't think of a reason, outside military training, that anyone in the police or military should have a gun that doesn't apply to someone being attacked in their own home.

by avn2109 10y ago

erichocean 10y ago

> In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. That's because the individuals who wrote the US constitution gave exactly that justification—though people (of course) argue whether or not it is still relevant. From my perspective, the 1st amendment had a similar justification, so if you really don't buy that _guns_ can keep the gov't in check in any kind of realistic way, clinging to "free speech" as something we absolutely need—for the exact same reason—rings hollow; it doesn't seem like a principled position to me to reject one and embrace the other.

loukrazy 10y ago
I definitely do not agree that the first and second amendment have similar functions. In practice it is the restriction on free speech that is a much more effective and pernicious way of controlling a population. If you have a heavily armed population, that does not dissuade a repressive government from attacking you, it just gets more and more people killed- see Syria.
- erichocean 10y ago
  > If you have a heavily armed population, that does not dissuade a repressive government from attacking you, it just gets more and more people killed- see Syria. Syria is a great example—for the exact opposite belief that a lack of guns is a terrible way to deal with a repressive regime, and will get you and your family killed. Syrians are NOT "heavily armed", not even close. Syria is ranked 110th out of all countries in terms of "number of guns per capita".[0] USA has 28.8x (!) as many guns per person as Syria. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c...
hackuser 10y ago
>> In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. > That's because the individuals who wrote the US constitution gave exactly that justification The only explanation they gave was "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". It's a bit ambiguous, despite attempts to insist otherwise.
- tracker1 10y ago
  But you only need to look at the first militia act to see that by "militia" they mean every able bodied man of age, and they should have a firearm of their own.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    "Well regulated"
    - bbradley406 10y ago
      Misconstruing the phrasing of the amendment is a weak way to argue against it. At the time it was written, "well regulated" was commonly used to describe something that worked well, was in good repair, etc. A militia being "well regulated" (in modern English) by the government that it might need to fight is the opposite of that. http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
    - tracker1 10y ago
      Militia Act, not the article... if you look at the militia act, it specifically states that every able bodied male of age is part of said militia, and to provide their own arms. And you also miss the phrase "In order to" as in for example... it was only one of the reasons why the right to bear arms should not be infringed, not the only one. The bill of rights was at the time argued as superfluous as some felt that most people understood that those were inalienable rights and didn't need to be spelled out. Others felt otherwise (with foresight) and wanted stronger provisions, many of which were in the original Articles of Confederation the country was founded under before the Constitution.

tracker1 10y ago

By the same note, I don't see a handgun as being particularly less destructive in this instance... non-hollowpoint ammo fired into a crowd is more dangerous than full-jacket bullets... more deadly to those hit, but less to the people behind them. For me it's all about personal freedom. And since most people think the police and military are the only ones that should be allowed guns... I can't think of a reason, outside military training, that anyone in the police or military should have a gun that doesn't apply to someone being attacked in their own home.