An Armed Populace is Still an Effective Guard Against Tyranny

[jordan179]

(inspired from a comment I made to a recent post of bdunbar).

It is much easier to gain hold of heavy weapons when one already has light ones than to gain hold of light weapons when one has no weapons. Furthermore, a government who knows its populace is armed is less likely to attempt tyrannical measures that would involve sending its agents among the

Comments

[prester_scott]

http://www.softgreenglow.com/wp/?p=7716

[jordan179]

Indeed. Romania's a good example of that. The deterrent effect of an armed populace may be even more important: every time that a politician backs off an interventionist government program with a shudder and "The people won't stand for that," a violent confrontation has been averted.

There's a simple existence proof of this -- note that one of the first things a dictator does is make sure that only HIS supporters are armed.

[mindstalk]

We took up arms from the police forces who deserted their units, broke into the Patriotic Guards arms caches (some sort of communist reserve force), joined forces with a few Army units that refused to obey the order to fire upon the civilian population,

So an armed revolt can work if the police and military defect.

Actually, going by Jordan's own post

Many a revolution has succeeded when the regime had no choice but to call out real military formations, and all or most of those formations refused to fire on the people.

an unarmed revolt can work if the police and military defect. How many guns in the hands of the civilian population brought down the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union?

Conversely the Iraqi people were pretty well armed, AIUI. Yet Saddam Hussein stayed in power.

[jordan179]

Conversely the Iraqi people were pretty well armed, AIUI. Yet Saddam Hussein stayed in power.

Guess what the Republican Guard were for.

[kishiriadgr]

Yeah, but you have to count on the population to not be complacent and trusting of government. Americans are very complacent.

[prester_scott]

I think it is not so much that Americans trust in our government, as that we are anaesthetized by our wealth and our myriad amusements -- bread and circuses, you might say. If those were to be withdrawn, and the government perceived as anything less than brutally effective, then America might well explode.

[jordan179]

I don't think that our government has treated us that badly, compared to the way in which most other governments treat their peoples. Remember, when you say something like "Americans are very complacent," you are making an implicit comparison.

And I think the armament of the American population is one reason why our government treats us more carefully than, say, the British government treats the British people.

[prester_scott]

We are complacent compared to our forefathers, who revolted against the Crown over less abuse.

Agreed about disaster due to natural or external (i.e. enemy action) causes vs. internal (i.e. politicians) causes.

[skywaterblue]

I find this post filled with sad irony in light of the murder of Doctor Tiller and the shooting at the Holocaust museum today.

[skywaterblue]

Not so much irony as side effects.

The question (and fight) is, is eliminating/reducing such side effects (such as gun crime & accidents) worth the resulting side effects of such an act (itemized/alluded to by Jordan179 at the start of this thread)?

[jordan179]

I don't think that you'd really reduce crimes committed with guns as much as you might believe by making firearms possession illegal for most people. What is more likely is that honest citizens would disarm; criminals would go to the extra effort required to get guns, and citizens would be even more at their mercy because they would have no guns to protect themselves with.

You would also be indirectly encouraging "shoot and shovel" toward trespassers, especially in rural districts. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, I'm willing to explain.

Accidents, yes, you might reduce those. But at the cost of increasing the violent crime rate in general, as Britain has found out.

And, oh yes, you'd be disarming the people in the face of potential tyranny.

[prester_scott]

Actually you would increase "crime" because a lot of citizens would NOT disarm... and then we'd have a ruthless and semi-corrupt "War On Guns" law enforcement effort against it.

Oh, and as for gun accidents, the rate is very low. You're a lot more likely to drown in your pool. You're far, far more likely to be crushed in a car wreck.

[americanstd]

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt

[jordan179]

Glad to see you standing up for the 2nd Amendment.

I actually don't think you're a "liberal." More of a Pat Buchanan isolationist, I think.

[polaris93]

Now you know one of the major reasons I moved from Southern California to Seattle 22 years ago (to the day, as it happens). I got here just in time to find out that this is one of the most liberal cities in the USA, dammit. You can't win for losing. Ah, well, if I ever get a chance to move again . . .

[cutelildrow]

But at least they have conceal carry permits there in Seattle don't they? I have a friend who is a very AVID marksman who lives there; the conceal carry permit was one of the first things he got.

And, after Obama got elected, proceeded to start buying more guns.

[banner]

I am always amazed by the comments of people who understand neither war, rebellion, or insurrection. What percentage of the population was involved in the American Revolution? (I'll give you a hint: It was less than 10 percent). Look at any revolution, especially those that were successful, and it has rarely been a majority of the people involved. Most folks are too lazy to go to war, or fight for what is theirs. That's why Slavery existed as long as it did, (and in some places still does), that is why we still have communism, dictatorships, and other repressive forms of government

[jordan179]

What worries me the most these days is the 'Obama Corps'. This was passed into law, though they haven't started building it yet. Several million people whose only alliance is to President Obama? Can't say as I like that idea. This is how Chavez pretty much took over Venezuela (which is a dictatorship now btw, it's amazing how many people missed the transition - expect shooting in the streets this year).

Fortunately, the people likely to run and join the "Obama Corps" are probably incompetent, and Obama doesn't understand enough history to get why if you want to have Stormtroopers you'd better damn well pick veterans for the job. I expect the "Obama Corps" to be one of the factors in the Democratic electoral defeats of 2010 and 2012.

[polaris93]

I hope you're right. You probably are -- but the "Obama Corps" is one of the reasons I'm starting to get ulcers.

[banner]

You mean like The Obama Youth from that YouTube video?
In their matching uniforms and heavy boots?

"HE! IS! ALPHA!
HE! IS! OMEGA!
OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA!
YES! WE! CAN!
YES! WE! CAN!
YES! WE! CAN!"