High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban

Remove all ads!

Wow. You've achieved something amazing here. You've made Kitrax's logic seem even more sensible than yours. I was about to debate stuff with Kitrax, but it seems trivial compared to this comment.

So you're saying the main reason I need a gun is so I can shoot the government if I don't like them?? Are you serious??

Kitrax - you're welcome to your gun hobby, but I don't get the impression that the spectacular and astonishing American gun lobby is all about people who like guns as a hobby. It seems to be so much more than that. No hobby could create this much debate. And people all over the world have guns as a hobby, even in New Zealand and Ireland. But we don't have massive lobby groups continually fighting for gun rights. People here who want hobby guns can have hobby guns. Hunters here can have guns. Sport shooters here can have guns. I just don't get why the debate in America is so intense and continually makes news headlines.

Is it really for what Mordea says? So you can shoot the government?

 

I disagree. Time and time again, an armed citizenry have shown themselves to be effective in fighting conventional forces.

And gold (or land, or any natural resource) is held by the men with the guns. Indeed, men themselves are held in check by fear of the gun and truncheon. Civilisation is little more than the 'powers that be' having a monopoly over 'legitimate' use of force, which is then used to appropriate resources and coerce the human cattle into behaving the way that the powers that be want them to behave. Do as we say, or we imprison you. Resist imprisonment, and we kill you.

As Mao Zedong once said, "Political power comes at the end of a gun."

Indeed. This is precisely why an armed citizenry is such as effective safeguard against tyranny. I am reminded of yet more dialogue from the Godfather Series, this time from the second film:

As you yourself pointed out, soldiers fight for money. As soon as that money runs out, any incentive to continue killing their own brothers, fathers and sons (or even insurgents in an occupied nation) diminishes. On the other hand, an armed citizenry continues to fight on, in spite of a lack of coin.

Not at all. Time and time again, militias have managed to eventually beat back conventional armies. I have a good Vietnamese friend who once pointed out the irony that the conventional Vietnamese armies were smashed in almost every encounter with the Americans. It was in fact the armed peasants who gave the invaders the most heartache. They would organise guerilla strikes against Allied troops, and then fade away when the invaders tried to fight back.

Don't underestimate the power of a well armed citizenry. To win, it doesn't even need to win a single battle. It simply needs to fight long enough until either the coin runs out to pay the soldiers, or they are too disheartened to continue.

Scoff if you will. History supports my stance.

---------- Added 0 hours, 0 minutes and 59 seconds later... ----------

Don't you come from a country which gained its independence by shooting at its tyrannical government?

Why are you holding others accountable for what *I* personally believe? It is not Kitrax's responsibility to argue in favour of my opinion.

 

Of course he is.

I am more sceptical. I have things like this in mind, or this, or this, or this. Or, just for the heck of it, this.

Governments have resources at their disposal that a citizen armed with rifles do not have. We have moved beyond the age of the musket. Today armed citizens don't really stand a chance. If meaningful capability to resist government was a goal, citizens would gave to be allowed RPGs, IEDs, mortars, unguided rockets and the like to get a more level playing field. Beyond Gaza, Iraq, Somalia or Afghanistan that capability does not exist, and it is apparently generally considered undesirable even in those places.

 

You... you mean to tell me that people die when they resist a tyrannical government? Oh no! I never considered that.

You do realise that you are actually supporting my main contention, which is that the citizenry should *not* be disarmed, right?

 

You don't get me on both points.

(a) I tried to point out that the sacrifices for liberty that you so cherish can be quite painful. It far is easier to say they are worth it than to actually have to pay the price.

(b) No, I wanted to say that, when the goal is an armed citizenry able to resist the state in a meaningful way, where to you draw the line which weapons they ought to have. Is there an inherent limit to the right to bear arms? Perhaps in common sense? Or no limit at all? Why should only the military be able to buy M1 Abrahams tanks? Or field artillery? Nukes? Chemical weapons? Just asking.

More pointedly: If within the limitations of current firearm laws resistance to the use of force by the government is effectively and ultimately futile, does the concept of the armed citizenry to resist tyranny still hold? Or is it just a fetish to jerk off on? Opium for the rubes, to brutally twist that adage.

 

Both England and New Zealand do have constitutions, just not one, singular constitutional document which acts as supreme law. We are the only countries, as well as Israel, who don't have a single constitutional document. In saying that, we do have a constitution. Constitution Act (1986), Electoral Act (1993), New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (1990) are the most resent additions to our constitution. However, most of those can be over turned by a simple majority in Parliament. England's constitution is very similar in structure.

As far as guns in New Zealand, they are common. Much more liberal than in most western countries, with registration not been required for many types of guns. Particularly out in rural communities, gun ownership in New Zealand is high. Most families I know who live out in the country do own guns - mainly got shooting things like possums, pukekos and rabbits. Then of course you've got those who go hunting...

No, he doesn't. New Zealand gained it's independence through purely legal and political means. No gun raised in gaining our independence.

And Mordea, when was the last time you raised a gun against your government?

 

And I simply think that the people should be empowered so that they can make that choice of their own volition.

If it is permissible for the government to own tanks, field artillery, then it logically follows that it is also permissible for the individual to own tanks, field artillery and nukes.

A dubious premise.

Yes.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 50 seconds later... ----------

Congratulations. Be thankful that the British Empire not longer had the clout to enforce its claim over its distant territories.

Red herring.

 

They do. And die. A lot.

Ah yes. Do you know any country on earth that has it that way that is not a failed state?

Why? I want arguments.

Again, why?

 

Thanks captain obvious.

No. What's your point?

Because.

 

I think this is a critical question, and the answer is obviously 'no'. It's critical, though, because of the comparison. Many people (ok,many guys) like fast, expensive, and often none-too-safe sports cars. If they can afford them, they may buy one, or two, or three for the rich. These cars are dangerous weapons, and usually kill more people (cars in general, I don't know specifically about sports cars owned by men) each year than firearms do many times over. But, somehow, the one is acceptable and the other is strange and disturbing?

No, not by a long shot. Nor is it the first time we've... umm, violently? agreed with each other.

When I think about tight gun control, I always think of excessively legalistic, not necessarily effective, laws. The total ban on handguns in DC was an example, and the ridiculous requirements to get one now is another.

Mmm, no, not really. It was really just your assertions concerning where this country may go and comparing it to other countries that I disagreed with you on.

You have one major advantage in enforcing gun laws, though. Ireland is a small island. The US is a very large non-island.

For that matter, I can't think of any that has it is are failed states. Do you know of any countries that allow citizens to own tanks?

 

An American once told me that they were allowed to own tanks, but not the ammunition for them. I can't vouch for the truth of their statement, though.

Edit:

http://www.chacha.com/question/can-you-own-a-tank-with-active-guns

 

One of my step-dads' friends turned up in an AFV to the parents wedding. He followed the brides' car so looking out the back window you just saw this armoured thing with a small rectangle window showing the eyes and cheshire-cat grin of a man who finally had an excuse to drive his toy out in public Watching him get out the top without marking his suit was also impressive.

It's obviously unarmed though. He's too much of a big kid to be allowed that level of hardware!

 

I don't know about you, but I drive to work in a Challenger 2, or I sometimes take my Harrier. Always fully loaded. You can never be too careful. You never know when your rights are going to be repressed. I'm saving up for a nuke, just in case it comes down to a cold war between me and the government I've got some collateral. Noone is ever goingto defeat my paranoid delusions!

 

I find it interesting that a government can own guns, bombs, nukes, and chemical agents without being questioned. Yet when an individual, who is at the greatest risk of repression and harm, wants to do the same, they are labeled a paranoid nut.

Newsflash: You are more likely to be beaten and/or killed by your own government than by terrorists. You are more likely to be stolen from by your own government than by a crack addict on the street. You are more likely to have your right to autonomy impinged upon by the government than a goose-stepping Neo-Nazi. And it has been governments, not individuals, who have perpetrated the most horrific human rights abuses in history.

Just 40 years ago, the United States coerced its citizens into dropping napalm onto children, literally searing the flesh from their bones, simply because their parents had the audacity to demand independence from foreign rule. And what did the government do when popular opinion turned against them? Why, they had the protestors beaten and shot! You might have heard of this little incident, it was called the Vietnam War.

My 'paranoia' is justified. Your flippant attitude is not.

 

For that matter, I meant: ... a country where someone other than the government owns tanks (or artillery, or whatnot - I used tanks as one example for arms of war; I know, by now I should have learned that something like that never works).

The point, young Luke, is then that we are speaking about juvenile fantasies.

What you envision doesn't exist in this world, and probably it will not be allowed to exist.

The larger point is the verifiable fact that no functioning country allows its citizens having unlimited access to arms of war. That is because as a state they claim and have the monopoly of force, to one extent or another. More in old Europe and other countries, somewhat less in the US. States defend their monopoly of force, harshly if necessary. Add to that and the reality of greatly disparate levels of powers, as a result of modern technology. That has an impact on your idea of the citizenry having to be armed to be able to avert or get rid off tyranny.

Unless you want the average citizen to be armed like, say, the Taliban, then you can forget about arms allowing effective armed resistance to tyranny. Gun laws as they exist even in very permissive countries like the US will not give you the necessary means. Resistance will be overwhelmed.

In face of that, it is far from clear that the concept that an armed population, as in the US, is an effective safeguard against tyranny. It's closer to folklore.

 

Actually, as I commented, I don't object, (again reading comprehension). My point is that you could never sell such an idea to the majority of Americans, who would favor the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution as the trump card on gun laws.

Show me an example that would apply to our scenario. For instance, where disorganized citizens were successful from within against their government in an industrial nation-state with large resources.

Usually, one has to pay a guy "to stand somewhere with a gun." That was my point regarding, "men are held by gold."

 

???!!!

I acknowledged in a previous post that current civilisations (or more accurately, government) iare defined by their monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I'm way ahead of you there.

Why? Arming the citizenry implies that a government no longer has a *monopoly* on the legitimate use of force. This is a noble goal.

Umm, you are aware that I'm arguing in favour of arming the citizenry, right?

Supposition. As I pointed out previously, poorly armed militias have been able to achieve strategical victory against conventional armies. Asymmetrical warfare is key.

Furthermore, I'd argue that even a poorly armed militia has a better hope of resisting than an unarmed one.

A politician may have a million soldiers at his back, but he is still vulnerable to a bullet from a gun. The assassination of numerous American presidents is evidence of this.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 38 seconds later... ----------

Strawman. I'm disappointed.

 

Agreed. Most people, if not all, agree Saddam's government was a tyranny, yet average Iraqis were allowed to own AKs.

Armed citizenry doesn't prohibit tyranny.

 

You said -- "Time and time again." Show me.

Political opposition, strikes, demonstrations are far more successful, than a few guys on rooftops with hunting rifles. Whoever controls the rhetoric is more important than who has the guns. Strikes and demonstrations sap any government of its ability to do what it does - govern. BTW, our military is under civilian control, but maybe it's different in your country.