Gun ownership in third world countries

[barnbwt]

Guns are merely a means of delivering force. Force is not the same as political power. Resources are power (no matter what Mao may say, seizing the 'means of production' is foremost in his twisted ideology). In a vacuum, power congregates so that it may grow (i.e. otherwise "equal" people will cooperate for personal gain), and if unchecked by the rule of Law (a people's collective desire to limit individual power so it does not threaten mutual prosperity) it results in tyranny of one sort or another.

All the force in the world means nothing for an individual up against a group with the same capabilities, who has also gathered all the resources. You join their ranks to share in the booty, or submit to their rule to be given enough to live. As their stranglehold on resources tightens, the means of resistance collapse (a militia could not be fed even if it were formed against them), and the society crosses the event horizon into a Dark Age. Even though the regime's capabilities will ultimately decay from its own inherent inefficiency, that change is slow enough that all become accustomed and cease resistance.

Take heart, these "steady states" do not last forever, since random occurrences take place to destabilize even the best laid Orwellian Plans (assuming that massive incompetence doesn't accelerate the regime's decay to the point that subjects are once again able to challenge it). In the case of Somalia, it is likely some terrorist group will screw up big time and hurt someone important in a big way, and utterly ruin the "good thing" they had going. That perturbation will be enough to give the people there the opportunity to reclaim the prosperous nation they once had; or to simply rinse and repeat

"Case in point, a group of British colonies on the North American continent 237 years ago, threw off tyranny partly with the use of privately owned guns"
And inexplicably, these soldiers ("organized patriots") did not seize power with said guns as has happened with just about every other revolution ever

TCB

 

[Agsalaska]

It seems, according to this article, that only Baath party members could have AKs and other military weapons, but everyone else could still buy shotguns, lever actions, and other hunting weapons.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0310/p01s03-woiq.html



That's a very good point. Some people make it sound like the 2nd amendment is the only amendment that keeps us free. What I infer from your post is that every single amendment protects the others. Every single one of them is important, inter-connected and if one is shredded, the others are at risk as well.

Freedom of speech and press, the right to trial by a jury of citizens, the right to actually have a trial, as well as the others liberties we take for granted really are just as important.

Post of the month.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

Simple. It's self regulation in their warped minds. If you can create a divide and cause enough fear and anguish among the people then its easy to become the hero for the common cause. In other words, its easy to step in and make it appear that you have created order when there is indeed chaos among the people. As a dictator its finding this balance that keeps their power going.

Dictators use fear to gain and keep power. Got that.

But why is it that in most of the world, dictators take away guns, but in the middle east, they freely allow guns?

 

[X-Rap]

Because the people won't raise them against the leadership. If they do they are made an example of.
I have been saying for years that if the people ever rise up here we will see a kind of ruthlessness that hasn't been seen on this earth for years if ever.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

If they wouldn't, then why do western and southeast Asian dictators take away guns? Is Is there something in western culture that makes private firearms a threat to despotism that doesn't exist in the middle east?

 

[SilentStalker]

I can also say this:

Every person that lives in these types of countries do good to survive from day to day. When you live in that environment then there is little room for effort on reforming the country's political state

 

[herrwalther]

It is very cultural when you compare an American to an Afghan or Iraqi. Americans are taught from the cradle to be freedom, liberty and independent. In the Middle East, religion plays a much larger role in the pacification of people, being less openly violent. In Afghanistan, most if not all families I encountered had firearms. They were allowed to use them by tribal law regardless of what the Afghan government said about the rural provinces. I asked many what they thought of Karzai or their local provincial representative and many did not know who they were, all about tribal structure. They care little about politics of the country or lack thereof. Many just want to do right by Allah, feed their family what they can, and make it to tomorrow.

 

[itsa pain]

Here's a cultural question. What is the reason for gun ownership, particularly widespread gun ownership in these countries? Furthermore, why do dictators allow the people to have guns in the first place? It seems like an anomaly from the rest of the world. Lenin took away guns, Hitler took away guns (from Jews and political opponents), Ferdinand Marcos took away guns.

Yet Hussein, Al-Assad, and others not only don't take away guns, it seems like they allow people to have them, and not only have them, but have them largely unregulated. What's up with that?

there was a you tube video of ghadaffi in libya in an open top car standing up driving through a city with thousands of people running after him clapping waving shooting guns in the air. it was like Elvis came back to life and was going down broadway. video goes on for hour. the man was not worried about getting shot. none of our presidents could do that for 500 yds in any city in the country. we have been duped by wash. and the press on what constitutes a "dictator"

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

That seems true about Afghanistan. The way they run themselves is completely different from how we do things.

What do they use their firearms for? Simply protecting themselves? I can't imagine there would be much to hunt in the desert. Nothing that would feed them anyway.

Also, I suppose the heart of my question is, does the existence of these situations throughout the middle east challenge our notions about the RTKBA?

 

[jstein650]

"Also, I suppose the heart of my question is, does the existence of these situations throughout the middle east challenge our notions about the RTKBA?"

Not one iota, other than to reinforce than it should never be infringed.

 

[herrwalther]

What do they use their firearms for? Simply protecting themselves? I can't imagine there would be much to hunt in the desert. Nothing that would feed them anyway.

Also, I suppose the heart of my question is, does the existence of these situations throughout the middle east challenge our notions about the RTKBA?

Not so much about protection necessarily. Since the fall of the Taliban run government there have been crime networks/tribes/families running things with support from the Pakistanis and Taliban in Pakistan. Firearms in Afghanistan are less about defending my mud hut from someone breaking in at night and stealing my stuff (as it is here, home defense) and more about: This tribe/family attacked mine and now we go attack them. Or if they are part of the crime network/tribe/family they use their weapons offensively and attack coalition troops ie Americans.

 

[Deer_Freak]

Afghanistan does contain a lot of desolate areas. But there are also areas that are very lush with a good deal of game. Even in the desert there are spots that have enough plant life for sheep and goats to graze.

I am not sure the people of Iraq and Afghanistan want a strong centralized government. Their past governments were brutal and ineffective at protecting the people. They don't want a government set up by Americans. No matter how good a leader might be, they will see him as an American puppet.

Another thing that makes me believe they don't want a centralized government is when Americans pull out of an area they leave a base and equipment behind. Instead of setting up police patrols or their own military using the facilities they strip the bases of anything of value.

 

[410.bird.shot]

The movie "the Devils double" gives some good insight into how a society (iraq) can tolerate brutality from its leadership.

The story is told from the point of view of Uday's (Saddam's son) body double.

Very interesting & frightening movie.

The Devil's Double is a frightening movie, but it does give one much insight into the minds of madmen. Not one to be viewed with young children around, and I wouldn't want to watch it right before going to bed.