Skip to main content

View Diary: If government is full of tyranny, why arm it to the teeth? (239 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it's a strawman (0+ / 0-)

    because no RKBA group, to my knowledge (not even the NRA) has proposed that citizens need arms to protect themselves from drones.  NO RKBA group has suggested that they need 'parity' in some kind of arms race with the 'gubment' and their tanks/bombs/nukes/drones.

    This is a supposition widely imposed on gun owners/gun rights activists by the others side of an argument in an attempt to somehow discredit the RKBA, ergo, the government has tanks/nukes/drones/etc, how can you stop them with a rifle?

    •  I read that citizens need arms to protect (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      themselves from drone strikes all the time. They may not belong to a specific RKBA group, but certain gun owners do feel the need to arm themselves against potential drone strikes.

      You might wonder, then, what is the strategy for defending against drones? It all comes down to men with rifles raiding drone airfields and taking them over. Once again, rifles become the single most important tool of resistance in the face of tyranny, which is exactly why the government is right now desperately seeking to register and confiscate all rifles in the hands of U.S. citizens. The MQ-1C Warrior drone has an operational range of 675 miles, meaning that drone airfields must be relatively close to intended targets. The airfields are the weak link, and this is what Americans must take back ifdrone mass murder is unleashed against American citizens (by any president, now or in the future).
      •  thanks, I never saw that one (0+ / 0-)

        but they do have somewhat a belabored point.  Airfields have been overrun and disrupted/destroyed by men with rifles.

        Nobody here at DK is arguing that RKBA is dependent on some ability to gain parity with tanks/drones/nukes, though.
        In this context, to suggest that, because the 2nd amendment says that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed is somehow invalidated by the presence of tanks/drones/nukes/whatever else the goverment has, is a straw man.

    •  I had an argument with at least two gun owners (0+ / 0-)

      on this site - with lower UIDs - who argued that weapons ownership is inextricably linked to the possibility that they would need to overthrow our government.

      Much of RKBA is about placating one's paranoia and fears by "preparing" themselves through praying to a gun ownership god when you put someone's back to the wall on why they own (beyond antique collections and target shooting), so it wasn't a big stretch in that context.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:51:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can see a detterant effect (0+ / 0-)

        behind say, 90 million firearms owners out of what, 350 million citizens?  There's no way to confiscate that many weapons if even a percentage of them resisted (not enough police, federal agents or even military, a lot of which, mathematically are also gun owners themselves).

        To say, that a nation where a good percentage of citizens are armed provides a deterrence in defense of a free state.  That argument I'd buy.  To argue that, armed citizens need to be ready to forcibly overthrow the government if it became Tyrannical?  I'd call that a stretch when barely half the population bothers to vote on a good year.

        Regardless, throwing out the old "how are you going to overthrow a government with tanks/bombs/drones/nukes" is a red herring.  War gaming that regular citizens may-or-may-not be able to overthrow the government, while creative and entertaining, is pointless.  2/3rds of both houses of congress to pass an amendment to the constitution, and 3/4ths the states ratifying, or a constitutional convention.  

        Thats your hurdle.  That and all of the hunters, collectors, sports shooters, 'preppers' (as you call them) and regular folks who simply don't want to give up on the 2A of course.

        •  "Detterence in defense of a free state" (0+ / 0-)

          What does that even mean, please?  The state has police and militia, while the country has armed services - among other agencies.  What are loads of individual gun owners/carriers supposed to be deterring?

          There is no red herring in this diary: many of us have, indeed, encountered the crackpot notion that gun ownership is somehow part of a suicide pill written into the Constitution that allows citizens to overthrow their government - by force, if necessary - when they don't like what's happening.  As if Madison added an escape clause after they had just gone through such a tough Revolutionary War phase to get their new land underneath local rule.  kos is offering that such odd references by gun-toting folks in and out of government are completely at odds with continuing to build up policing and military capabilities in the same governmental bodies that might need to be overthrown, some day.  Or, deterred.

          "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

          by wader on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:53:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Detterence in defense of a free state (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Here's a good summary of what I feel freedom via deterrence means:
            A lot of 2A diatribe here summarized below...

            Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

            In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

            When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force....
            ...When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act..... - by Maj L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

            Take that rationale from the personal level to the national level, and you get what Douglas MacArthur was thinking about when he (not Isoroku Yamamoto) opined You cannot invade the mainland United States. "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".

            It's not the supposition that taking an armed nation by force is impossible, given enough time/material/willpower the US would undoubtedly fall (to either some other nation, or a tyrannical government)... it's that to do so would be so costly in terms of lives/PR/political capital that the notion of using drone strikes/tanks/whathaveyou to squash a 'rebellion' would be counterproductive. Using force simply goes off the table when you're dealing with that many folks who are armed.  It's, frankly, inconceivable.

            Now, if the government really wanted to disarm the people they could probably do so without one shot fired.

            Thats why I see the whole "how are you going to stop a drone with a rifle" argument silly and without merit.

            •  I'm not worried about foreign invasion, if that's (0+ / 0-)

              supposed to be the point of "deterrence".  That's smacks of a Red Scare situation which was based on an escalating fear which made for a highly malleable citizenry - it led to opportunities for demonizing perfectly good USA citizens for decades, as an example.  Not productive.

              You're quoting from extremist websites with rather silly arguments, btw.  None of these things are rational: we have organized counterinsurgency and there's no need to invade our shores or otherwise.  Red Dawn was slash fiction.

              The point still stands untouched: why continue to build up our own military that paranoid gun owners are wary of resisting with their weapons at some future point?  There's a blind spot in their thinking, and it's all due to cultural manipulation: fear the dark person (or other) getting into your personal space, so own and carry various weapons; further, fear the government's motives at least equally as dark assailants, and arm yourself further - rugged individualist you are and all.

              That's the silly and without merit argument, right there.  Essentially, fear drives more gun sales, which helps only gun manufacturers and their political cohorts.

              "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

              by wader on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:00:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  this is where I don't think we're going to agree. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Without getting into a (albeit short) laundry list of the firearms I do own, none were bought out of fear... the exception being the 1903 Springfield I bought because I know others in the shop were interested in it (and if I would have held out a few weeks longer, found one in better condition.  Whats stopping me?  Blowing another two grand, to be honest).

                Collector, totally. Hunter, yes. Range plinker, guilty as charged.  Scardy cat?  Nah, you need to do a better job of convincing me that with the exception of one historic rifle, I've made any fear-driven firearm purchases.  I see a lot of the fear angle coming from folks who are not gun owners.  I see a lot of folks scared of guns, and a few folks scared of guns trying to convince gun owners that they only own guns out of... fear?  

                Your comments in particular about 'dark people' getting into my personal space?  Dark people, really? You mean my stepfather? My cousin? pardon me while I mock you trying to insinuate that some kind of 'dark people' are driving my fear-based gun purchases, when I happen to eat dinner with at least one 'dark person' most Sundays.  

                I can see how some folks, you may feel they are extremists, couch their defense of the second amendment.  I feel it's a reasonable explanation, from the perspective that they do not trust their government. I'm not that person, though, because if I were, I would have been wholesale foolish to work for the government (military) for ten years, given them (the NSA) access to my background information for security clearances (twice), then proceeded to give them more (personal information and fingerprints, again) for additional state background checks to carry concealed and for my foid card.  Who is so paranoid of the government, that they give them that much information? repeatedly?

                I consider people who want to see the 2nd amendment struck from the bill of rights as extremists, as well as folks who want to ban certain firearms which look scary.  I find their arguments reasonable, too, from their perspective that they don't trust an average citizen with "that kind of firepower" but not something I'm willing to support.  I'm not that person either, because I'd be going against my self interests, similar to how a person who mistrusts the government would invite them into my business as much as I have.

                Yeah, I'm just not buying what your selling from either the fear, race, or government angles.  Not at all.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site