2 ms·

What the fuck? No, I just don't think an exiled authoritarian government overthrowing a foreign-imposed kleptocracy is a great example of private firearms playi

What the fuck? No, I just don't think an exiled authoritarian government overthrowing a foreign-imposed kleptocracy is a great example of private firearms playing a vital role in preserving liberty & democracy, which is what I asked for. Do you?

linksnapzz 5y ago
At worst, it's a wash. At best... I'd have to have a better idea about what you mean by "liberty & democracy". For starters, it's not clear that the Taliban have less popular support than the ruling coalitions in many western governments.
- handrous 5y ago
  I mean the usual things that are meant by both those words, no special meaning. To address the simpler of the two directly: it's not necessary that an authoritarian state be unpopular—often they're not, especially at first—but that doesn't make them democratic, obviously. As for where the new Afghan government is likely to fall on the liberal-to-illiberal spectrum, I think most folks agree it's likely to, at best, lean toward the latter. That this may, nonetheless, in some ways, still be an improvement over the regime they're replacing, is irrelevant for my purposes. The reason all this matters is that the question I'm concerned with is whether the standard argument for why private gun ownership is vital to a liberal democracy—that is, that they're indispensable tools for preserving both the "liberal" and the "democracy" parts of that term—is actually true. My suspicion, from what I have turned up so far, is that they're more often used (when effective, that is—they're used ineffectively too, sometimes) as a tool for imposing popular but illiberal positions, than for preserving liberty & democracy, but it's possible I've just not looked at the right evidence yet.
  - linksnapzz 5y ago
    Without a sufficiently precise definition for liberal, the most that I can say is that private ownership of firearms has been a feature of Anglo-American political practice since Charles Stuart. This, for the purpose of having a decentralized fighting force to oppose a centralized standing army that served the government. You might say that the Stuarts were an unpopular but (in the modern sense ) more liberal...absolutist monarchy than the populist, puritan Protectorate was an illiberal theocracy, but I'd be wary of going too far retconning modern sensibilities to 17th century England. And, it isn't necessary.
    - handrous 5y ago
      Simply liberal as in "liberal democracy", which I'm using in the normal way, since the argument goes that that's the system and the general state of things that the 2nd amendment is vital to preserving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism Again, I'm actually open to other forms of argument for gun ownership, and despite how my posts here have probably looked I consider measures to limit private firearms ownership unimportant, at best—I just don't find the particular position that they're extremely important to the preservation of liberal democracy such that one might reason "of course Australia is turning authoritarian—if more people there could legally own guns, that wouldn't be happening", compelling.

linksnapzz 5y ago

At worst, it's a wash. At best... I'd have to have a better idea about what you mean by "liberty & democracy". For starters, it's not clear that the Taliban have less popular support than the ruling coalitions in many western governments.

handrous 5y ago
I mean the usual things that are meant by both those words, no special meaning. To address the simpler of the two directly: it's not necessary that an authoritarian state be unpopular—often they're not, especially at first—but that doesn't make them democratic, obviously. As for where the new Afghan government is likely to fall on the liberal-to-illiberal spectrum, I think most folks agree it's likely to, at best, lean toward the latter. That this may, nonetheless, in some ways, still be an improvement over the regime they're replacing, is irrelevant for my purposes. The reason all this matters is that the question I'm concerned with is whether the standard argument for why private gun ownership is vital to a liberal democracy—that is, that they're indispensable tools for preserving both the "liberal" and the "democracy" parts of that term—is actually true. My suspicion, from what I have turned up so far, is that they're more often used (when effective, that is—they're used ineffectively too, sometimes) as a tool for imposing popular but illiberal positions, than for preserving liberty & democracy, but it's possible I've just not looked at the right evidence yet.
- linksnapzz 5y ago
  Without a sufficiently precise definition for liberal, the most that I can say is that private ownership of firearms has been a feature of Anglo-American political practice since Charles Stuart. This, for the purpose of having a decentralized fighting force to oppose a centralized standing army that served the government. You might say that the Stuarts were an unpopular but (in the modern sense ) more liberal...absolutist monarchy than the populist, puritan Protectorate was an illiberal theocracy, but I'd be wary of going too far retconning modern sensibilities to 17th century England. And, it isn't necessary.
  - handrous 5y ago
    Simply liberal as in "liberal democracy", which I'm using in the normal way, since the argument goes that that's the system and the general state of things that the 2nd amendment is vital to preserving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism Again, I'm actually open to other forms of argument for gun ownership, and despite how my posts here have probably looked I consider measures to limit private firearms ownership unimportant, at best—I just don't find the particular position that they're extremely important to the preservation of liberal democracy such that one might reason "of course Australia is turning authoritarian—if more people there could legally own guns, that wouldn't be happening", compelling.