People living in countries with gun control - please chime in

[Steve Petersen]

That is a great hope.

I think standing armies are a very big threat to civil liberties. As far as I know in the military you are trained to follow orders and not think. If some despot gains control of the military civil liberties would be dead in any country.

Here is the oath of enlistment for US Regular Army:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

They swear to uphold the Constitution.

There is also a clause somewhere, to 'obey all LAWFUL orders.' I can't remember where it is.

 

[Steve Petersen]

As a soldier and veteran, I'm curious to know precisely which rural environments neagte weapons technology?
[/indent]

Faux pas? Probably meant 'urban.'

Stalingrad comes to mind.

 

[DZoolander]

Nah...she said rural...

I took her statement to mean that out on the farms, geography was such that modern warfare technology would lose it's "oompf" and militias could operate on a level playing field against the forces of tyranny.

lol

Maybe she meant urban? I dunno.

I think that the ability (and willingness) to drop bombs pretty much factor both out of the equation...but that's just me

 

[Garyzenuf]

A few questions:

1: Do you believe that your government keeps guns out of your hands, so you will be impotent when they choose to misbehave themselves either now/or in the future?

Actually we've told them to keep guns out of our hands repeatedly.

2: How do you keep yourselves from being slaves without the implicit threat that you might shoot and kill your leaders if they don't behave themselves?

We just threaten them every now and then with a nation-wide strike.

Seems to do the trick.

3: Why do you think the government keeps guns out of your hands?

Because we don't want or need them to feel or be safe.

*

 

[LightHorseman]

Faux pas? Probably meant 'urban.'

Stalingrad comes to mind.

Um... no it doesn't. Now sure, urban sieges can be very long bloody and drawn out... but only when the oposing forces are largely equivalent. Remember that both sides at Stalingrad were fairly closely matched in terms of technology and access to trained troops. Stalingrad was not held by an armed civilian resistance against the Wermacht, it took the bulk of Stalin's military might to hold onto it. Had Stalingrad been held by a force less technologically advanced, they never would have held it.

 

[Douger]

Ezoolander,
Have you noticed that with all the replies here you have gotten none from.
1. People living in countries where there currently is armed resistance against a tyrannical government?
or
2. Countries where the populace is unarmed and the government cracks down on dissent?

The point of your thread is to disprove the need for private gun ownership, however the responses here are all coming from open societies and from people who have not owned guns. Naturally you're getting the kind of replies you're looking for.

 

[DZoolander]

I agree with you to a large extent.

However, to a degree, IMHO it kind of proves my point. It shows to me that having an open society free of tyranny is not predicated on the idea that the government must live in fear of being shot by the people.

Rather, it's probably the form of government, and the temperament of the culture that matters.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Um... no it doesn't. Now sure, urban sieges can be very long bloody and drawn out... but only when the oposing forces are largely equivalent. Remember that both sides at Stalingrad were fairly closely matched in terms of technology and access to trained troops. Stalingrad was not held by an armed civilian resistance against the Wermacht, it took the bulk of Stalin's military might to hold onto it. Had Stalingrad been held by a force less technologically advanced, they never would have held it.

I was thinking in terms of how urban environments can neutralize the use of armor.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

I was thinking in terms of how urban environments can neutralize the use of armor.

Artillery can remove that problem, what springs to mind for me is the town in northern Iraq (forgoten the name) that the US levelled when it was fighting enemy fighters. The urban environment made little difference and simply gave the US an area with a nice concentration of enemies to kill.

found it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Phantom_Fury

 

[Douger]

I agree with you to a large extent.

However, to a degree, IMHO it kind of proves my point. It shows to me that having an open society free of tyranny is not predicated on the idea that the government must live in fear of being shot by the people.

Rather, it's probably the form of government, and the temperament of the culture that matters.

But an open society is only open until such a time as the government starts cracking down on dissent.
I can definitely see some societies that are fairly free and open today falling into the "authoritarian" category a decade or so from now.
Weapons are a fact of life, they simply aren't going away, and giving certain government bodies exclusive rights to them quite often sees those weapons being used against an unarmed populace.

 

[DZoolander]

I dunno. I see it differently.

Most of the cases that I'm aware of where a society has become authoritarian - it's been done with the complicity of the people...not in spite of them.

(with a few exceptions...) something happens that traumatizes the people...for example...Germany after WWII. The people feel persecuted or threatened - and leaves themselves open for a demagogue to come in - usually appealing to a sense of nationalism...and claiming that dissenters lack patriotism (at best) or are more likely in league with those that are threatening the state. They squelch free speech - and the rank and file (majority) go along with them out of fear.

They scapegoat, the play upon fears of foreigners, and they divy up the society into a sense of "us vs. them".

To be honest - I'd be more fearful of our country falling into the hands of some demagogue like that than I would many other countries. Heck - if I listen to how some people talk about Muslims, Mexicans, and others...in a lot of ways it's very reminiscent to how the German people looked at Jews in the early days of the third reich.

Once again...a trauma followed by scapegoating under the guise of nationalism. You'd be surprised how many people would act in complicity believing that Muslims ought to be tattooed - or given some sort of brand - to identify them within our society. That they should be detained until this "war" is over...etc.

I'm sorry - but it *is* eerily reminiscent of that earlier point in history.

So - I dunno if I agree that government really ever just *TAKES* from the people. If I were a despot - I would realize just how base and fearful most people are - and get them to go along in complicity...which is most often what *I* see has happened in the past. It's a lot easier (and not as difficult as you might think) to get people to go along with you - than it is to blatantly take it from them.

...and the funny thing is...and maybe I'm wrong...I happen to believe most gun owners in this country would be the first ones to sign up for that...believing that they were fighting *for* liberty...justifying it with their fear...and not realizing they were actually it's greatest enemies.

 

[Douger]

You give a pretty good description of how governments can turn tyrannical, and also a reason that I think more people should take care to arm themselves.
The right wing of the United States is boiling. Should enough of them ever decide to "take the country back", the people they blame the country's problems on had better be prepared.

 

[DZoolander]

Yeah, I'm amazed by what a bunch of little crybabies those people are. After having nearly complete control of both the legislative and executive branches for quite some time - within 6 months of democratically (and deservedly) getting booted on their ears they're "boiling over". Talk about an immature sense of entitlement and a lack of love for the American way of life and system that our forefathers fought for - ya know?

Personally, I'd rather not see it devolve into the kind of things you're suggesting though. Are we going to have cases like that nut that shot up that place in DC - probably - yeah. Are we going to have cases like that kook that shot up that church? Probably - yeah. However - I'm not sure if I would suggest taking it to the level that you're suggesting.

I think each case like that shows the uber-right-wing to be the nuts that they are. It shows where their point of view goes - when carried to fruition.

 

[Fantine]

Those gun stats were interesting.

I wonder why there are never any statistics about whether gun ownership increases or decreases with the level of education (I would bet it decreases, probably sharply.)

Or income level (I would bet, once again, it decreases fairly sharply.)

Maybe in those western European nations with strong gun laws people don't care because they are more educated and wealthier than Americans are, their prosperity fueled by their ability to settle problems rationally rather than violently, which carries over to their national defense as well.

 

[rambot]

A few questions:

1: Do you believe that your government keeps guns out of your hands, so you will be impotent when they choose to misbehave themselves either now/or in the future?
2: How do you keep yourselves from being slaves without the implicit threat that you might shoot and kill your leaders if they don't behave themselves?
3: Why do you think the government keeps guns out of your hands?

Thank you for asking.

As a general sentiment, I just have to say that the government doesn't try to keep guns out of my hands. I have no gun safety or hunter training (though I do hope to eventually do both); I cannot possess a fire arm right now. Outside of common sense, I have no gun safety or hunter training so I don't think it's appropriate for me to have a gun anyways.
Once I'm sufficiently trained, the government will let me have a gun with no other hinderance.
1) The Canadian military would never attack Canadian citizens. I don't have that kind of paranoia.
2) I don't know if I understand that question
3) I want the government to keep unnecessarily powerful guns off the streets (vis a vis, out of the public scene). Criminals, the insane, the blind should not be permitted to have guns (sorry blind people). Some people are not fit to hold a weapon like that.
That's the kind of gun control I want to see. If a hunter has several dozen guns that he keeps locked, unloaded, registered and safely stored, I have NO wish to see the government take away his guns. Shoot away!

I understand there is a deer population explosion right now. Go get some cheap meat!

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Personally, I'd rather not see it devolve into the kind of things you're suggesting though. Are we going to have cases like that nut that shot up that place in DC - probably - yeah. Are we going to have cases like that kook that shot up that church? Probably - yeah. However - I'm not sure if I would suggest taking it to the level that you're suggesting.

I guess gun control in D.C. worked real well, didn't it?

 

[allhart]

Hay, did any of you hear about the actor(Crocodile Dun Dee) in Australia being killed ,because he wouldn't give up his guns , so his Gov. shoot him. Well it's coming here. They are already setting up camps up all around us for the up rising and organizers are pushing distention all around are establishments. For distrust of our Gov. pushing to imploded the establishment, for the melt down....

 

[DZoolander]

Link, please, because everything I'm reading says he's still very much alive. lol

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Hay, did any of you hear about the actor(Crocodile Dun Dee) in Australia being killed ,because he wouldn't give up his guns , so his Gov. shoot him. Well it's coming here. They are already setting up camps up all around us for the up rising and organizers are pushing distention all around are establishments. For distrust of our Gov. pushing to imploded the establishment, for the melt down....

Paul Hogan got arrested for tax problems, but not for gun things.

If you want to spout nonsense, check wikipedia.

 

[Fantine]

It seems obvious to me that there are "two Americas" when it comes to feelings about the Second Amendment.

People in large urban areas almost overwhelmingly want guns off their streets, the less guns the better. Police Departments give people money for turning in guns. Public safety officials overwhelmingly support sensible gun controls.

People in small rural areas want guns for hunting and self-protection.

What I don't see is why both groups can't be satisfied. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that people might have different needs in areas where there are drive-by shootings than they do in areas where only five or ten cars drive by per day....

The Republicans, who are so concerned about "state's rights" most of the time, don't seem to give a hoo-ha about the rights of people in inner cities to live without fear of drive-by shootings. What hypocrites!