7 ms·

This is what scares me about the current attitude (nationally) towards gun control. The right to bear arms is a basic civil right, unambiguously encoded in the

This is what scares me about the current attitude (nationally) towards gun control. The right to bear arms is a basic civil right, unambiguously encoded in the Bill of Rights alongside speech, assembly, religion, due process, etc. Throughout history, taking away weapons has always been an early step down the slippery slope to totalitarianism and stripping the populous of their other rights. Just because it's unlikely to happen here -- that we think it can't happen here -- doesn't mean it will not. That's what everyone in all of history has thought, but in fact by the time anyone realizes what's happening, it's usually too late. "All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." -- Mao Zedong

coldtea 9y ago
>Throughout history, taking away weapons has always been an early step down the slippery slope to totalitarianism and stripping the populous of their other rights. Only in places/eras where having weapons mattered. It's not like anybody's gonna take on the feds with their guns.
wahern 9y ago
So you've never seen the movie Tombstone? You think there's no legitimate history of measured gun control in this country, and that any departure from the current trend is a slippery slope to a dictatorial state?
kelnos 9y ago
Let's talk in practical terms for a second, though. Do you truly believe that gun ownership in the US could result in a bunch of citizens overthrowing the US government should it become tyrannical? I just don't see it happening. The US military is far too well-trained and -armed, and of course a hypothetical tyrannical US government would turn the military against its citizens if there was an armed uprising. And they would win so laughably easily. Now sure, there's the possibility that factions in the military would turn against this tyrannical government and save the day, but you don't need the 2nd Amendment for that to work out.
- forgotmypw 9y ago
  In my opinion, it is not about overthrowing the government, it is about a right to self-defense. Not just from the government, but also from your average criminal. It's true that a citizen or even a group of citizens is no match for the military. But the difference is between citizens being able to try defending themselves, and being completely defenseless. It is the difference between soldiers being ordered to fire their own citizens, and the citizens being defenseless. It is the difference between individuals who swore to defend their countrymen having to reconcile killing them in battle. It is the difference between a confidence that you can do something and a feeling that you can be easily intimidated. China, Russia, Iraq, Germany, in all of these places the general population was disarmed as one of the first steps towards totalitarianism. It is not a coincidence.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    > Not just from the government, but also from your average criminal. And yet the US has one of the highest homicide rates for developed countries in the world, while sporting the highest (by far) firearm per capita in the world. So something with that nice argument you, and others, have is not working.
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  Afghanistan. 16 years, still haven't won. And us citizens have more weapons than the taliban; longer harder to protect borders than Afghanistan; and a population that would be sympathetic to the cause. I wouldn’t be so sure the us military would win. According to current military doctrine[0], counterinsurgency requires a minimum of 1 counterinsurgent per 50 people in the population. If you assume ALL us military personnel can serve in combat simultaneously (ie: no troops required for supply lines, paperwork, management, etc), and you included all police forces in the US, you would only get to 1 per 100. So you say they would "win so laughably easily".. but according to the military itself, it does not have enough troops to handle an insurgency in the US. 0. As written in the Army and Marine Corps field manual (and this doctrine was based on research of past (us and non-us) conflicts)
  - 9y ago
krapp 9y ago
>This is what scares me about the current attitude (nationally) towards gun control. The current attitude stems from a desire for civility and public safety. Why would that scare you? >The right to bear arms is a basic civil right, unambiguously encoded in the Bill of Rights alongside speech, assembly, religion, due process, etc. It's not unambiguously encoded. If it were, there would not be entire debates over the meaning of the punctuation. People are unambiguous in their interpretations because of political ideology. >Throughout history, taking away weapons has always been an early step down the slippery slope to totalitarianism and stripping the populous of their other rights. Yes, but regulation is not confiscation, and the commonly held assumption on the part of many gun owners that the former inevitably leads to the latter (or is merely a knowing pretense towards the latter) is an uncharitable interpretation of the opposing point of view. Americans maintain the right to keep and bear arms even if that right doesn't extend to all possible arms under all possible circumstances. "All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." -- Mao Zedong" The anti gun-control argument is, ironically, also that all political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, but that power is liberty when the guns are pointed at the state and tyranny when the guns are pointed by the state. And yet anyone who simply doesn't want themselves or their children getting shot by psychopaths are considered unreasonable, because it's also liberty by proxy when those guns are pointed by the people at the people, and Americans are expected not only to tolerate and accept it, but be wary to question it. Is it not possible that there is a reasonable middle ground between the NRA and Stalinist gulags?
- icebraining 9y ago
  The current attitude stems from a desire for civility and public safety. Why would that scare you? Regardless of the specific topic, lots of terrible things have been done "with the best of intentions". It's hardly a reason not to be scared.
  - krapp 9y ago
    >lots of terrible things have been done "with the best of intentions". It's hardly a reason not to be scared. Are you referring to gun control or the 2nd Amendment, here? It's a reason to be scared, if you're paranoid and believe the only thing keeping your government from killing you is the fear of your gun barrel against its heads. But I don't believe such a fear is reasonable, or worthy of the weight it seems to be given in American political discourse.
gnode 9y ago
I have to wonder whether gun ownership is preventing totalitarianism government when the will of the people to resist or even recognise authoritarianism is lacking. As a European, facts such as the incarceration rate of the US being second only to the Seychelles strike me as oddly dystopian.
- quantumleap22 9y ago
  The incarceration rates of Europeans in America are similar to those of Europeans in Europe.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    If by Europeans, you mean white, then that isn't true. The US incarcerates whites at the rate of 450 per 100k which is roughly double the rate of any European country except for Russia and equal to Russia's rate. It's triple or more the rate of incarceration in most of Western Europe. If you are referring to people who are actually from European countries, then I haven't seen data on that, but Europeans in the US would be a very small non-representative sample of Europeans, so I fail to see the relevance.
    - CompanionCuuube 9y ago
      Yes, Europe is sending us their best so the sample in the US is not representative. I think you are responding to someone talking about people who share the cultural upbringing of Europe rather than race. Unless you think race is a powerful indicator of criminality?
randallsquared 9y ago
> Throughout history, taking away weapons has always been an early step down the slippery slope to totalitarianism and stripping the populous of their other rights. Only in retrospect: if you look at non-ephemeral totalitarian regimes, they don't typically allow dissenters to freely control effective weapons... but if you start from the other direction and examine states which do not allow their populace to freely control effective weapons, your examination pool is most of the states in the world, most of which are not (typically considered) totalitarian.
Sukotto 9y ago
>The right to bear arms is a basic civil right, unambiguously encoded in the Bill of Rights "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This tweet claims to describe the roots, early debate, and context of 2nd amendment's inclusion in the constitution. I found it interesting. https://twitter.com/egavactip/status/967923256983420928 https://twitter.com/egavactip/status/967923256983420928 I wonder what bias author Mark Pitcavage brings to the discussion. According to twitter profile he is connected to https://www.adl.org/who-we-are https://www.adl.org/who-we-are which claims to be some kind of anti-semitism group. (Which I have never heard of before)
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  ADL is decidedly not an anti-Semitism group, and certainly does not claim to be one.
  - Sukotto 9y ago
    The only info I have to go on is their about page. The second sentence of which is "We fight anti-Semitism and all forms of hate." Perhaps you're thinking of some other organization with the same name? Anyway, the core point of my comment was that I liked getting some background on the drivers that led to the 2nd amendment.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > The only info I have to go on is their about page. The second sentence of which is "We fight anti-Semitism and all forms of hate." You realize that is describing the polar opposite of an anti-Semitism group, right?

coldtea 9y ago

>Throughout history, taking away weapons has always been an early step down the slippery slope to totalitarianism and stripping the populous of their other rights. Only in places/eras where having weapons mattered. It's not like anybody's gonna take on the feds with their guns.

wahern 9y ago

So you've never seen the movie Tombstone? You think there's no legitimate history of measured gun control in this country, and that any departure from the current trend is a slippery slope to a dictatorial state?

kelnos 9y ago

Let's talk in practical terms for a second, though. Do you truly believe that gun ownership in the US could result in a bunch of citizens overthrowing the US government should it become tyrannical? I just don't see it happening. The US military is far too well-trained and -armed, and of course a hypothetical tyrannical US government would turn the military against its citizens if there was an armed uprising. And they would win so laughably easily. Now sure, there's the possibility that factions in the military would turn against this tyrannical government and save the day, but you don't need the 2nd Amendment for that to work out.

forgotmypw 9y ago
In my opinion, it is not about overthrowing the government, it is about a right to self-defense. Not just from the government, but also from your average criminal. It's true that a citizen or even a group of citizens is no match for the military. But the difference is between citizens being able to try defending themselves, and being completely defenseless. It is the difference between soldiers being ordered to fire their own citizens, and the citizens being defenseless. It is the difference between individuals who swore to defend their countrymen having to reconcile killing them in battle. It is the difference between a confidence that you can do something and a feeling that you can be easily intimidated. China, Russia, Iraq, Germany, in all of these places the general population was disarmed as one of the first steps towards totalitarianism. It is not a coincidence.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  > Not just from the government, but also from your average criminal. And yet the US has one of the highest homicide rates for developed countries in the world, while sporting the highest (by far) firearm per capita in the world. So something with that nice argument you, and others, have is not working.
rgbrenner 9y ago
Afghanistan. 16 years, still haven't won. And us citizens have more weapons than the taliban; longer harder to protect borders than Afghanistan; and a population that would be sympathetic to the cause. I wouldn’t be so sure the us military would win. According to current military doctrine[0], counterinsurgency requires a minimum of 1 counterinsurgent per 50 people in the population. If you assume ALL us military personnel can serve in combat simultaneously (ie: no troops required for supply lines, paperwork, management, etc), and you included all police forces in the US, you would only get to 1 per 100. So you say they would "win so laughably easily".. but according to the military itself, it does not have enough troops to handle an insurgency in the US. 0. As written in the Army and Marine Corps field manual (and this doctrine was based on research of past (us and non-us) conflicts)
- 9y ago

krapp 9y ago

>This is what scares me about the current attitude (nationally) towards gun control. The current attitude stems from a desire for civility and public safety. Why would that scare you? >The right to bear arms is a basic civil right, unambiguously encoded in the Bill of Rights alongside speech, assembly, religion, due process, etc. It's not unambiguously encoded. If it were, there would not be entire debates over the meaning of the punctuation. People are unambiguous in their interpretations because of political ideology. >Throughout history, taking away weapons has always been an early step down the slippery slope to totalitarianism and stripping the populous of their other rights. Yes, but regulation is not confiscation, and the commonly held assumption on the part of many gun owners that the former inevitably leads to the latter (or is merely a knowing pretense towards the latter) is an uncharitable interpretation of the opposing point of view. Americans maintain the right to keep and bear arms even if that right doesn't extend to all possible arms under all possible circumstances. "All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." -- Mao Zedong" The anti gun-control argument is, ironically, also that all political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, but that power is liberty when the guns are pointed at the state and tyranny when the guns are pointed by the state. And yet anyone who simply doesn't want themselves or their children getting shot by psychopaths are considered unreasonable, because it's also liberty by proxy when those guns are pointed by the people at the people, and Americans are expected not only to tolerate and accept it, but be wary to question it. Is it not possible that there is a reasonable middle ground between the NRA and Stalinist gulags?

icebraining 9y ago
The current attitude stems from a desire for civility and public safety. Why would that scare you? Regardless of the specific topic, lots of terrible things have been done "with the best of intentions". It's hardly a reason not to be scared.
- krapp 9y ago
  >lots of terrible things have been done "with the best of intentions". It's hardly a reason not to be scared. Are you referring to gun control or the 2nd Amendment, here? It's a reason to be scared, if you're paranoid and believe the only thing keeping your government from killing you is the fear of your gun barrel against its heads. But I don't believe such a fear is reasonable, or worthy of the weight it seems to be given in American political discourse.

gnode 9y ago

I have to wonder whether gun ownership is preventing totalitarianism government when the will of the people to resist or even recognise authoritarianism is lacking. As a European, facts such as the incarceration rate of the US being second only to the Seychelles strike me as oddly dystopian.

quantumleap22 9y ago
The incarceration rates of Europeans in America are similar to those of Europeans in Europe.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  If by Europeans, you mean white, then that isn't true. The US incarcerates whites at the rate of 450 per 100k which is roughly double the rate of any European country except for Russia and equal to Russia's rate. It's triple or more the rate of incarceration in most of Western Europe. If you are referring to people who are actually from European countries, then I haven't seen data on that, but Europeans in the US would be a very small non-representative sample of Europeans, so I fail to see the relevance.
  - CompanionCuuube 9y ago
    Yes, Europe is sending us their best so the sample in the US is not representative. I think you are responding to someone talking about people who share the cultural upbringing of Europe rather than race. Unless you think race is a powerful indicator of criminality?

randallsquared 9y ago

> Throughout history, taking away weapons has always been an early step down the slippery slope to totalitarianism and stripping the populous of their other rights. Only in retrospect: if you look at non-ephemeral totalitarian regimes, they don't typically allow dissenters to freely control effective weapons... but if you start from the other direction and examine states which do not allow their populace to freely control effective weapons, your examination pool is most of the states in the world, most of which are not (typically considered) totalitarian.

Sukotto 9y ago

>The right to bear arms is a basic civil right, unambiguously encoded in the Bill of Rights "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This tweet claims to describe the roots, early debate, and context of 2nd amendment's inclusion in the constitution. I found it interesting. https://twitter.com/egavactip/status/967923256983420928 https://twitter.com/egavactip/status/967923256983420928 I wonder what bias author Mark Pitcavage brings to the discussion. According to twitter profile he is connected to https://www.adl.org/who-we-are https://www.adl.org/who-we-are which claims to be some kind of anti-semitism group. (Which I have never heard of before)

dragonwriter 9y ago
ADL is decidedly not an anti-Semitism group, and certainly does not claim to be one.
- Sukotto 9y ago
  The only info I have to go on is their about page. The second sentence of which is "We fight anti-Semitism and all forms of hate." Perhaps you're thinking of some other organization with the same name? Anyway, the core point of my comment was that I liked getting some background on the drivers that led to the 2nd amendment.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > The only info I have to go on is their about page. The second sentence of which is "We fight anti-Semitism and all forms of hate." You realize that is describing the polar opposite of an anti-Semitism group, right?