Without guns...

[Veldan Rath]

Yeah there would be no way for a guerrilla force to withstand a fractured US military for a prolonged length of time.

Oh wait...

[Khendraja'aro]

Of course, the military is fractured and the guerillas aren't. Sure thing.

[Ominous Gamer]

Enoch is against mandatory training because he is paranoid about having to turn on his government?

[Flixy]

That's not what he said, that's why he wants guns available for purchase, he is against mandatory training because he thinks it won't have any effect against gun crime.

[Loki]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear, but I wasn't sure exactly what answer you were looking for. What is clear that the Federal, State, and Local Government has the authority to regulate the type, function, and features that a firearm may possess, (See the NFA of 1934, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, and the various state and local laws and ordinances restricting what firearms can be owned, how they are stored, and when and where they can be carried/operated). However, what is legally permitted is certainly different from what I personally believe is right. I don't have a problem with civilians owning semi automatic, fully automatic weapons, (which are legal, but highly regulated) or other 'destructive devices.' I don't have a problem with this for a number of reasons, but primarily it's because I believe the vast, vast majority of people are good, and should the time ever come when an armed insurrection became necessary I would want a populace that was capable of holding its own.

Would you care to hazard a guess as to when there was last an armed insurrection in a consolidated democracy?

[Enoch the Red]

Enoch is against mandatory training because he is paranoid about having to turn on his government?

Either you are being intentionally dishonest, or I'm not the one with a reading comprehension problem.

In that sort of apocalyptic scenario, you and most of your fellows won't stand a chance anyway. You can now tell yourself that guns make all the difference, but you'll already have lost.

If you actually "need" those guns promised under the 2nd amendment, civilization as we know it will have ceased to exist.

THAT is the kind of scenario we're talking about. Not some kind of guerilla warfare against an oppressive government - that is just a delusion in paranoid heads.

I'm not sure what situation we are talking about, because I don't believe specifics have been mentioned. I think by any reasonable metric, and using history as a guide, the only constant that I can see with regard to nation states is entropy. I do not believe that it is a given that this, or any country, can achieve ascendancy in perpetuity. Likewise, I'm not able to say a nation that is free and democratic now will always be free and democratic, especially when our most basic civil liberties are constantly under threat. When former employees at the NSA describe our national security apparatus as being one step away from becoming a turnkey dictatorship, there are legitimate concerns that I feel need to be addressed.

Does this mean that armed revolt is just around the corner? Absolutely not. But just because the threat isn't imminent doesn't mean we should cede our fundamental right to self defense, and the means with which to do so.

[Loki]

Since the modern conception of democracy came into existence in the last 2+ centuries, there has never been an instance of a country that was democratic and at least somewhat prosperous for a substantial period of time (i.e. a consolidated democracy) becoming undemocratic for domestic reasons. Not one instance. Excepting for a short-lived imposition of martial law in poverty-stricken India, every modern overthrow of democracy occurred either in a country that had recently become democratic or was the result of foreign-imposed regime change. I would think that a "reasonable metric" would be "it's happened to a similar country in the past at least once in human history".

[Enoch the Red]

Since the modern conception of democracy came into existence in the last 2+ centuries, there has never been an instance of a country that was democratic and at least somewhat prosperous for a substantial period of time (i.e. a consolidated democracy) becoming undemocratic for domestic reasons. Not one instance. Excepting for a short-lived imposition of martial law in poverty-stricken India, every modern overthrow of democracy occurred either in a country that had recently become democratic or was the result of foreign-imposed regime change. I would think that a "reasonable metric" would be "it's happened to a similar country in the past at least once in human history".

There are a couple different points I'd like to raise. First, as you no doubt are aware human history spans lengths of time far greater than 2+ centuries. The length of time that consolidated democracies have been common is even less. To say this relatively modern practice hasn't failed yet seems rather myopic. The Roman Empire never fell either. Until it did.

Second, the goal post wasn't simply that the country became undemocratic. A simple plurality of people can be oppressive while still being democratically elected. Now, we have a system of government that has been designed and framed in a way to help prevent that from happening. Not surprisingly, one of those safe guards includes having an armed populace.

Why do you think that is?

[Loki]

That's a rather poor analogy. I'm not saying that because the US never become undemocratic, it won't become undemocratic. I'm saying that because no similar country has ever become undemocratic, the US won't. Using your analogy, people should have fully expected Rome to fall some day because every other empire fell some day.

I'm not defining democracy in a narrow sense. A country that suddenly started to discriminate against a substantial portion of its population would cease being a democracy (as best as I could tell, you're not talking about continued discrimination). There have been war-time instances of discrimination against small minorities, but I somehow doubt that Japanese-Americans would have been smart to resist the wishes of the majority in 1941. I can't think of any instance of a consolidated democracy becoming more discriminatory against a more substantial portion of its population.

Now, you can always make the argument that just because something has never happened in the course of human history doesn't mean that it can't happen. And that's certainly true. But do you really want to make policy on that basis? Why not make laws on the basis of a potential zombie apocalypse? You never know.

[Enoch the Red]

That's a rather poor analogy. I'm not saying that because the US never become undemocratic, it won't become undemocratic. I'm saying that because no similar country has ever become undemocratic, the US won't. Using your analogy, people should have fully expected Rome to fall some day because every other empire fell some day.

How long have consolidated democracies been considered the norm in Western society, Loki? To say that because no similar country, in a historically insignificant time span, has ever become undemocratic, that we somehow have nothing to worry about is certainly myopic.

I'm not defining democracy in a narrow sense. A country that suddenly started to discriminate against a substantial portion of its population would cease being a democracy (as best as I could tell, you're not talking about continued discrimination). There have been war-time instances of discrimination against small minorities, but I somehow doubt that Japanese-Americans would have been smart to resist the wishes of the majority in 1941. I can't think of any instance of a consolidated democracy becoming more discriminatory against a more substantial portion of its population.

And I'm free to take it that the Civil War occurred during a period of time that you would not consider the United State to be a consolidated democracy?

Now, you can always make the argument that just because something has never happened in the course of human history doesn't mean that it can't happen. And that's certainly true. But do you really want to make policy on that basis? Why not make laws on the basis of a potential zombie apocalypse? You never know.

Governments falling, and nations succumbing to totalitarianism are certainly things that have happened over the course of human history. What has never happened is a nation that somehow has managed to best the second law of thermodynamics. I find it far more likely for the United States to, at some point to enter a period of decline and no longer be a prosperous democracy, (and thus exempted from your comparison) than to assume that we will forever enjoy the fruits of having an uncontested hegemony and being a global power.

[LittleFuzzy]

Would you care to hazard a guess as to when there was last an armed insurrection in a consolidated democracy?

The last successful one? Don't know. It got kinda close at the end of the French 4th Republic when the coup d'etat put de Gaulle in power and if the later plot to overthrow him had gotten further there might also have been one.

[Loki]

The last successful one? Don't know. It got kinda close at the end of the French 4th Republic when the coup d'etat put de Gaulle in power and if the later plot to overthrow him had gotten further there might also have been one.

I'd hate to play a semantic game, but France wasn't a consolidated democracy in '58 or '61 (that was the reason for the coups!). Even if we disregard that, it's not like the coup was followed by severe restrictions in the rights of Frenchmen.

[Veldan Rath]

I'd hate to play a semantic game,

Since when?

[LittleFuzzy]

I'd hate to play a semantic game, but France wasn't a consolidated democracy in '58 or '61 (that was the reason for the coups!). Even if we disregard that, it's not like the coup was followed by severe restrictions in the rights of Frenchmen.

Why don't you just say "no healthy democracy respecting the rights and privileges of its citizens and not suffering any significant upheaval or public discontent has ever had an armed insurrection" then? Or does that make what you're trying to do too obvious?

[Loki]

Why don't you just say "no healthy democracy respecting the rights and privileges of its citizens and not suffering any significant upheaval or public discontent has ever had an armed insurrection" then? Or does that make what you're trying to do too obvious?

Using upheaval and discontent to explain a lack of upheaval and discontent would be a truism. A consolidated democracy is one that's been around for a while and where all the major sections of society agree to the rules of the political game. This was definitely not the case in France.

[Loki]

How long have consolidated democracies been considered the norm in Western society, Loki? To say that because no similar country, in a historically insignificant time span, has ever become undemocratic, that we somehow have nothing to worry about is certainly myopic.

The data for these kind of things only goes back to the 1920s or so. The US, Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Scandinavia minus recently independent Finland were consolidated democracies back then. The rest of Western Europe (minus Iberia and Greece) and India met the criteria by the 1960s. Botswana, a bunch of countries in Latin America, along with Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan met those criteria by the late 1990s. India is the only one on that list to ever slide back, and that slide was temporary. India was also a poverty-stricken socialist craphole.

And I'm free to take it that the Civil War occurred during a period of time that you would not consider the United State to be a consolidated democracy?

Let's even assume that the US was a consolidated democracy in 1861 (not unreasonable). Is it your claim that the US federal government suddenly started oppressing a part of its population back then (let's exclude the oppression of Native Americans and blacks, which was ongoing since independence)?

Governments falling, and nations succumbing to totalitarianism are certainly things that have happened over the course of human history. What has never happened is a nation that somehow has managed to best the second law of thermodynamics. I find it far more likely for the United States to, at some point to enter a period of decline and no longer be a prosperous democracy, (and thus exempted from your comparison) than to assume that we will forever enjoy the fruits of having an uncontested hegemony and being a global power.

And yet the only democracy that ever became totalitarian (i.e. Germany) was anything but a consolidated democracy at the time. All the other examples (Cuba, USSR, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia, and maybe Iraq and Uganda are countries that were authoritarian before they became totalitarian; they also had no experience with democracy.

As for standards of prosperity, no democratic country (even a democracy that's not consolidated) with a GDP per capita of over $6k has ever stopped being a democracy. You think American income is going to fall 90%?

[Enoch the Red]

The data for these kind of things only goes back to the 1920s or so. The US, Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Scandinavia minus recently independent Finland were consolidated democracies back then. The rest of Western Europe (minus Iberia and Greece) and India met the criteria by the 1960s. Botswana, a bunch of countries in Latin America, along with Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan met those criteria by the late 1990s. India is the only one on that list to ever slide back, and that slide was temporary. India was also a poverty-stricken socialist craphole.

Oh, well if something hasn't happened in ~100 years, given very specific and cherry picked criteria, it must not even be a possibility.

You do understand what the definition of myopic is, don't you? We are not only talking about historically insignificant timescales, but your definition is one that precludes many of the causes of discontent. Are you going to see armed rebellion in a prosperous country, with democratically elected leaders, vibrant civil liberties, and a common social contract that is agreed upon by a large majority of the population? Of course not. But that isn't, and hasn't been my argument.

Let's even assume that the US was a consolidated democracy in 1861 (not unreasonable). Is it your claim that the US federal government suddenly started oppressing a part of its population back then (let's exclude the oppression of Native Americans and blacks, which was ongoing since independence)?

You keep shifting goal posts, Loki. If you'll remember the original question was:

Would you care to hazard a guess as to when there was last an armed insurrection in a consolidated democracy?

But yes, if I was a black slave in the south I would have preferred to have been armed and capable of fighting for my freedom. Likewise, if I was a slaveholder, I'd be terrified of slaves with guns. Jim Crow laws prohibiting firearm ownership didn't happen accidentally.

And yet the only democracy that ever became totalitarian (i.e. Germany) was anything but a consolidated democracy at the time. All the other examples (Cuba, USSR, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia, and maybe Iraq and Uganda are countries that were authoritarian before they became totalitarian; they also had no experience with democracy.

You are using very loosely defined terms here. Is Venezuela technically a democracy? Was South Africa? What about Italy circa the early 1920's? Hungary in the 30's? Panama, the Phillipines, or Spain?

As for standards of prosperity, no democratic country (even a democracy that's not consolidated) with a GDP per capita of over $6k has ever stopped being a democracy. You think American income is going to fall 90%?

My standard for what constitutes tolerable governance isn't simply being a member of a functioning democracy, Loki. You are tilting at the wrong windmills.

[Aimless]

You do understand what the definition of myopic is, don't you? We are not only talking about historically insignificant timescales, but your definition is one that precludes many of the causes of discontent. Are you going to see armed rebellion in a prosperous country, with democratically elected leaders, vibrant civil liberties, and a common social contract that is agreed upon by a large majority of the population? Of course not.

Are you likely to see such a country turn into one in which an armed rebellion will be likely and necessary? We had a similar discussion on this forum a while back and I don't recall anyone being able to give a plausible causal description of how eg. the US would turn into that sort of a country

[Veldan Rath]

I think Aimless this is where it breaks down due to our different views on (federal) government. You don't see much reason for some of the discontent. You seem to agree with those in power over here, thus it's hunky dory. Others see a continuous erosion (if mostly slow and steady) of liberties. Gun stuff aside, the damn Patriot Act should have been a big red flag.

[Aimless]

I don't agree completely with those in power, esp. not in the US. You guys have certainly seen a great deal of new restrictive and dare I say scary legislation in the past decade. What I'm saying is that I don't see a clear path from those particular changes to the kind of situation in which you'd get--or need to get--a violent widespread insurrection.

Which groups do you believe would rebel, and against what sort of oppression? I don't think you'd get much of an uprising against laws that ostensibly help keep the nation safe from terrorists and the like, not from the groups with the guns. Who were the last major protesters? Not a buncha anti-govt freedom-loving libertarians, but, rather, a buncha govt-loving entitlement-craving liberals. The only candidate group I can think of are imprisoned potheads.

[LittleFuzzy]

Are you likely to see such a country turn into one in which an armed rebellion will be likely and necessary? We had a similar discussion on this forum a while back and I don't recall anyone being able to give a plausible causal description of how eg. the US would turn into that sort of a country

Really? It's possible we have different ideas of what is plausible. I could see it reaching that point in as little as four years. Initiating event is a domestic terrorist attack at major political targets/partisan political assassinations a la Congresswoman Giffords but not just one lone nut. The different sides would have to respond in the correct ways at various junctures but it could happen and we already saw, in the Dem response to the Giffords shooting, that one of the requisite initial responses would likely be taken.

[Loki]

Really? It's possible we have different ideas of what is plausible. I could see it reaching that point in as little as four years. Initiating event is a domestic terrorist attack at major political targets/partisan political assassinations a la Congresswoman Giffords but not just one lone nut. The different sides would have to respond in the correct ways at various junctures but it could happen and we already saw, in the Dem response to the Giffords shooting, that one of the requisite initial responses would likely be taken.

And you're basing this on what? Surely not on history. How many Western countries endured multiple political assassinations (Italy, France, and Western Germany come to mind)? How many of them ended up with an armed rebellion? Even a craphole like Pakistan has a higher tolerance for political violence before pretensions at democracy are thrown away.

[Loki]

Oh, well if something hasn't happened in ~100 years, given very specific and cherry picked criteria, it must not even be a possibility.

Modern democracy did not exist before that.

You do understand what the definition of myopic is, don't you? We are not only talking about historically insignificant timescales, but your definition is one that precludes many of the causes of discontent. Are you going to see armed rebellion in a prosperous country, with democratically elected leaders, vibrant civil liberties, and a common social contract that is agreed upon by a large majority of the population? Of course not. But that isn't, and hasn't been my argument.

You're ignoring the fact that consolidated democracies don't stop being democracies. And prosperous countries in the modern era don't stop being prosperous. Even in the Great Depression, the American GDP went down about a quarter. The kind of economic collapse you believe is feasible has not actually occurred in centuries, when global and national economies did not in any way resemble ours.

But yes, if I was a black slave in the south I would have preferred to have been armed and capable of fighting for my freedom. Likewise, if I was a slaveholder, I'd be terrified of slaves with guns. Jim Crow laws prohibiting firearm ownership didn't happen accidentally.

An armed slave would be a dead slave. Much good it would do you. Is your objective now to start wars you have no chance of winning?

You are using very loosely defined terms here. Is Venezuela technically a democracy? Was South Africa? What about Italy circa the early 1920's? Hungary in the 30's? Panama, the Phillipines, or Spain?

Some of those examples are just awful. Using a democracy scale of -10 to +10 where +6 is viewed as the absolute minimum threshold for democracy, the highest level Hungary reached before 1990 was +1. Italy reached a +3. Panama was never a democracy before 1989. Spain was a democracy for 8 years before WWII. South Africa and Philippines were democracies, but barely. Venezuela is the only one that was a solid democracy for a considerable period of time, though we're still talking a few decades, not centuries (like the US) and it was still poor with extreme poverty. It hasn't met the criteria for democracy recently.

http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm

My standard for what constitutes tolerable governance isn't simply being a member of a functioning democracy, Loki. You are tilting at the wrong windmills.

Give a single example of a prosperous democracy that was a democracy for at least a few decades (i.e. it was consolidated) stopping being what you consider a functioning democracy. And please don't mention the US Civil War; that conflict did not start due to Northern aggression. Plus the whole logic of prosperous democracies not reverting to dictatorship is that there is a substantial middle class that wouldn't support such a policy; the very concept of a middle class didn't exist in 1861; most Americans were farmers.

[GGT]

snip

But yes, if I was a black slave in the south I would have preferred to have been armed and capable of fighting for my freedom. Likewise, if I was a slaveholder, I'd be terrified of slaves with guns. Jim Crow laws prohibiting firearm ownership didn't happen accidentally.

Seriously, that's one of the most revisionist views of history I can remember being posted here. They were SLAVES! They weren't considered fully human, let alone "equal". Not culturally, politically, or legally.

You sound like a sound byte from the movie Lincoln. "Why didn't all those slaves just rise up and kill the single white male plantation owner?"

Women didn't need to take up arms to gain the Right to vote, either. Lurching from the 1600s to Jim Crow laws is just plain weird. And not productive in the modern world....where the amount and type of arms is what's being discussed.

Enoch, IMO you give too much value to guns themselves, as instruments of "Power to the People". That may have worked in previous centuries....when organized government and Rule of Law were spotty or shoddy. But this is the 21st Century, not the wild west.

If you truly fear our government, your government....taking up arms is unnecessary and quite possibly counter-productive. It makes you sound like a member of the fearful fringe wing nuts, worrying about conspiracies or apocalyptic scenarios.

[Enoch the Red]

Modern democracy did not exist before that.

You're ignoring the fact that consolidated democracies don't stop being democracies. And prosperous countries in the modern era don't stop being prosperous. Even in the Great Depression, the American GDP went down about a quarter. The kind of economic collapse you believe is feasible has not actually occurred in centuries, when global and national economies did not in any way resemble ours.

Which is exactly my point. You are taking an incredibly small sample size and timescale and extrapolating it out as though it were meaningful. It isn't. Additionally, you are ignoring what I have been saying, which is being a member of a democracy is not the only consideration. Venezuela is a functioning democracy, but I doubt you or I would care to live there.

An armed slave would be a dead slave. Much good it would do you. Is your objective now to start wars you have no chance of winning?

An armed Jew in the Warsaw ghetto would be a dead Jew. Much good it would do them. Why should they even try to fight an oppressive, murderous tyrant when they have no chance of winning?

There are times where death in defense of an ideal is preferable to life under tyranny.

Give a single example of a prosperous democracy that was a democracy for at least a few decades (i.e. it was consolidated) stopping being what you consider a functioning democracy. Plus the whole logic of prosperous democracies not reverting to dictatorship is that there is a substantial middle class that wouldn't support such a policy; the very concept of a middle class didn't exist in 1861; most Americans were farmers.

Give me a single example of an empire as large, prosperous, and stable as Rome, that has extended and exerted power over as large and diverse an area, and had as great a cultural impact on the people comprising the empire, that has fallen in the Classical era.

And please don't mention the US Civil War; that conflict did not start due to Northern aggression.

And the goal posts have shifted again.

[GGT]

snippety snip

Second, you'd need to gauge the popular support for resistance, and the number of people, armed or otherwise, that are willing to fight for their cause.

Please, define their "cause". If it's rooted in the Constitution, they should be willing to recognize we're a nation of laws....not vigilanteism.

I'm also not guaranteeing that such a conflict would be winnable. There's a good chance it would not. That doesn't mean it would not be worth fighting. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto also didn't stand a chance against the regular forces of the Wehrmacht. Does that mean they shouldn't have fought?

Are you trying to compare the modern US to 1930's Hitler? tsk for the Godwin. Double tsk for using that as a metric for citizens owning military style weapons or ammo clips.

[katsung47]

Newtown school shooting, continuationof Colorado theatre shooting?

All the story came from the media and authority. So far no witness' fieldreport. It is just like "Operation Geronimo". They let"seal" gave different stories which often conflicts each other. Itlooked like they try to kill all witness as possible as they can. Include NancyLanza who might prove something different from official story.

Have you noticed that Adam Lanza wore a mask?
Do you know that James Holmes wore gas mask in Colorado theatre shooting?

Nobody could recognize who actually did the shooting.

Iran’s state-run news network blames ‘Israeli death squads’ for Sandy Hookshooting

Posted by Max Fisher on December 18, 2012

According to the official story, Adam Lanza was found with his olderbrother’s ID, and it was not stolen. However, older brother Ryan – whomofficials say is very cooperative – claims not to have even seen his brothersince 2010. Where would Adam get this ID? And why does such use not qualify asa theft?

According to the official story, Adam Lanza was wearing a black outfit witha mask and bulletproof vest. Why would he want to hide his identity, and whywould he wear a bulletproof vest if he planned to kill himself?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...hook-shooting/

James Holmes, Aurora shooting suspect, was grad school dropout and loner,say neighbors

The suspected Colorado movie mass murderer was a loner and a grad schooldropout who described himself last year as “quiet and easy-going” on a rentalapplication.

By Nancy Dillon In San Diego AND Larry Mcshane / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Holmes, who wore a gas mask and black full-body armor during his attack,was not a military veteran and had no ties to any terrorist groups, officialssaid.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...#ixzz2FX0XxfbM

[GGT]

<redacted>

When former employees at the NSA describe our national security apparatus as being one step away from becoming a turnkey dictatorship, there are legitimate concerns that I feel need to be addressed.

Does this mean that armed revolt is just around the corner? Absolutely not. But just because the threat isn't imminent doesn't mean we should cede our fundamental right to self defense, and the means with which to do so.

Now, we have a system of government that has been designed and framed in a way to help prevent that from happening. Not surprisingly, one of those safe guards includes having an armed populace. Why do you think that is?

Are you going to see armed rebellion in a prosperous country, with democratically elected leaders, vibrant civil liberties, and a common social contract that is agreed upon by a large majority of the population? Of course not. But that isn't, and hasn't been my argument.

An armed Jew in the Warsaw ghetto would be a dead Jew. Much good it would do them. Why should they even try to fight an oppressive, murderous tyrant when they have no chance of winning?

There are times where death in defense of an ideal is preferable to life under tyranny.

Then outline your "ideal". Please.

If it's being a prosperous and 'ascendant' country, with democratically elected leaders -- who protect and defend 'vibrant' civil liberties, using all three branches of government in accordance with the US Constitution....then we share common ground.

If your "ideal" means giving highest priority to an armed populace (via 2nd Amendment), as the best way to fight against governmental tyranny, then we part ways. I redacted your posts for clarity, because you're citing our Constitutional-Republic-Democracy, whilst distrusting it at the same time.

Our judicial branch (SCOTUS) has already declared that citizens have the Right to firearms, and that our legislative branches can Regulate those firearms. There's nothing "unconstitutional" about banning military tanks or nuclear weapons....or prohibiting the manufacture or sales of other military-grade weaponry by/to the general populace.

It's perfectly rational to see swelling demands from citizens who want better gun control aka gun safety laws. It's the natural response to gun technology that's advanced faster, and far outpaced, our legislative processes.

When people testify at senate judicial hearings that women need semi-automatic weapons to compete against violent men, and/or defend themselves and their babies from multiple intruders....we've got problems. When the NRA says the BEST defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun....we've got even bigger problems.

When others testify that citizens need unlimited, unregulated access to unlimited weapons to protect against a tyrannical government....the focus of our problems is being hijacked by a tiny, paranoid, wing-nut minority fringe.