4 ms·

How is it mad? Government's are capable committing atrocities of unprecedented scale against their own citizenry. I wonder if the Russian Kulaks could have orga

by Helmet 9y ago

How is it mad? Government's are capable committing atrocities of unprecedented scale against their own citizenry. I wonder if the Russian Kulaks could have organized an armed resistance, or perhaps the Chinese peasants during Maosism. Also, I recommend to you the fascinating history of the African-American tradition of arms in the US. Black's used firearms to defend their families and communities against KKK and white mobs. "A good revolver is the best response to the slave catcher" - Fredrick Douglas

mikeash 9y ago
Both the Russians and Chinese had big civil wars in which the governments you mention eventually came into power. The question of armed resistance isn’t a hypothetical. It was tried and it failed. The notion of gun rights as essential to defending against tyranny is inherently self-defeating. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal, won’t a tyrant do that before they start with other forms of oppression? If gun control works, tyrants will use it too. If it doesn’t then you don’t have to worry about it.
- Helmet 9y ago
  Both the Russians and Chinese had big civil wars in which the governments you mention eventually came into power. The question of armed resistance isn’t a hypothetical. It was tried and it failed. This has nothing to do with my point, or if it does, it certainly isn't clearly elucidated. As far as I'm aware, there is no strong history of armed resistance from either of the groups that I mentioned. And I'll leave you to the research the history of successful resistance movements, as there are many. I would start with the American Revolutionary War and then perhaps the importance of guns and armed resistance by blacks during Antebellum South and the Jim Crow period. The notion of gun rights as essential to defending against tyranny is inherently self-defeating. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal, won’t a tyrant do that before they start with other forms of oppression? Your argument is circular as it's based on a false premise. Yes, they may very well begin with outlawing guns. Which is why we have guns. If you try to take my gun by force, I will shoot you. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal This isn't what it takes. This would be the first formal step, but what it would take is for the State to pry them out of my hands, which would be met with resistance. Not just by me, but by the millions of gun-owners across the country - which is precisely why it won't happen.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Right, but why is there always such a fuss about gun control laws? Every time politicians propose some restriction, gun advocates talk about how this is dangerous because it will leave us unable to resist tyranny.
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    >Which is why we have guns. If you try to take my gun by force, I will shoot you. So, just to be clear, if the government outlaws your guns, when they come for them, you're going out shooting?
    - CompanionCuuube 9y ago
      Why is that the question? Gun control people always try to propose the hypothetical as a "voluntary buyback" rather than jackboots kicking doors down.
      - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
        I don't know. Why don't you ask him why he said it? >Yes, they may very well begin with outlawing guns. Which is why we have guns. If you try to take my gun by force, I will shoot you. >This isn't what it takes. This would be the first formal step, but what it would take is for the State to pry them out of my hands, which would be met with resistance. Not just by me, but by the millions of gun-owners across the country - which is precisely why it won't happen.
        CompanionCuuube 9y ago
        Poster was asked what it would take for gun control to be effective as a precursor for tyranny. Poster responds with an answer which goes beyond the pale for what most civilized countries would consider. I asked why you were incredulous, and you responded that you were incredulous about an incredulous hypothetical. The part you quoted says it's untenable.
- nickik 9y ago
  You are just ignoring things you don't want to see. Russian peasants actually did stop the government from taking over in 1920. Lenin was forced to enact the NEP because their policies were literally collapsing. There was no other plan behind the NEP, it was written within a 3 month period. It took a massive effort and practically a civil war by Stalin to collectivize agriculture. While the state was eventually successful in that case, it clearly shows that resistance is possible. In many other countries in the middle east for example, the governments know that they can not implement many polices, so they don't even try. It also depends on level, if you are 1 of 50 people who oppose the government, its not gone go well. However if there is widespread support then the cost of the government goes up hugly if citizens are armed.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Why didn't the USSR or these Middle Eastern countries just enact gun control first, then enact these other policies without resistance?
    - nickik 9y ago
      Because people don't follow the law when they don't think the government legal code is legit.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        Meaning enacting gun control wouldn’t actually work? Why do gun advocates worry about it so much?
        Helmet 9y ago
        You keep regurgitating this line of reasoning like it's some sort of profound "gotcha" logical trap. We worry because we do not wish for things to escalate. And I can assure you, they will escalate, as armed separatism would be inevitable.
        9y ago

by Helmet 9y ago

mikeash 9y ago

Both the Russians and Chinese had big civil wars in which the governments you mention eventually came into power. The question of armed resistance isn’t a hypothetical. It was tried and it failed. The notion of gun rights as essential to defending against tyranny is inherently self-defeating. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal, won’t a tyrant do that before they start with other forms of oppression? If gun control works, tyrants will use it too. If it doesn’t then you don’t have to worry about it.

Helmet 9y ago
Both the Russians and Chinese had big civil wars in which the governments you mention eventually came into power. The question of armed resistance isn’t a hypothetical. It was tried and it failed. This has nothing to do with my point, or if it does, it certainly isn't clearly elucidated. As far as I'm aware, there is no strong history of armed resistance from either of the groups that I mentioned. And I'll leave you to the research the history of successful resistance movements, as there are many. I would start with the American Revolutionary War and then perhaps the importance of guns and armed resistance by blacks during Antebellum South and the Jim Crow period. The notion of gun rights as essential to defending against tyranny is inherently self-defeating. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal, won’t a tyrant do that before they start with other forms of oppression? Your argument is circular as it's based on a false premise. Yes, they may very well begin with outlawing guns. Which is why we have guns. If you try to take my gun by force, I will shoot you. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal This isn't what it takes. This would be the first formal step, but what it would take is for the State to pry them out of my hands, which would be met with resistance. Not just by me, but by the millions of gun-owners across the country - which is precisely why it won't happen.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Right, but why is there always such a fuss about gun control laws? Every time politicians propose some restriction, gun advocates talk about how this is dangerous because it will leave us unable to resist tyranny.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  >Which is why we have guns. If you try to take my gun by force, I will shoot you. So, just to be clear, if the government outlaws your guns, when they come for them, you're going out shooting?
  - CompanionCuuube 9y ago
    Why is that the question? Gun control people always try to propose the hypothetical as a "voluntary buyback" rather than jackboots kicking doors down.
    - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
      I don't know. Why don't you ask him why he said it? >Yes, they may very well begin with outlawing guns. Which is why we have guns. If you try to take my gun by force, I will shoot you. >This isn't what it takes. This would be the first formal step, but what it would take is for the State to pry them out of my hands, which would be met with resistance. Not just by me, but by the millions of gun-owners across the country - which is precisely why it won't happen.
      - CompanionCuuube 9y ago
        Poster was asked what it would take for gun control to be effective as a precursor for tyranny. Poster responds with an answer which goes beyond the pale for what most civilized countries would consider. I asked why you were incredulous, and you responded that you were incredulous about an incredulous hypothetical. The part you quoted says it's untenable.
nickik 9y ago
You are just ignoring things you don't want to see. Russian peasants actually did stop the government from taking over in 1920. Lenin was forced to enact the NEP because their policies were literally collapsing. There was no other plan behind the NEP, it was written within a 3 month period. It took a massive effort and practically a civil war by Stalin to collectivize agriculture. While the state was eventually successful in that case, it clearly shows that resistance is possible. In many other countries in the middle east for example, the governments know that they can not implement many polices, so they don't even try. It also depends on level, if you are 1 of 50 people who oppose the government, its not gone go well. However if there is widespread support then the cost of the government goes up hugly if citizens are armed.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Why didn't the USSR or these Middle Eastern countries just enact gun control first, then enact these other policies without resistance?
  - nickik 9y ago
    Because people don't follow the law when they don't think the government legal code is legit.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Meaning enacting gun control wouldn’t actually work? Why do gun advocates worry about it so much?
      - Helmet 9y ago
        You keep regurgitating this line of reasoning like it's some sort of profound "gotcha" logical trap. We worry because we do not wish for things to escalate. And I can assure you, they will escalate, as armed separatism would be inevitable.
        9y ago