Refute this argument

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

monotonous_iterancy

Member
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
915
I found a newer book in a library called The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know by Philip J. Cook and Kristen A. Gloss. I half-expected it to be in favor of gun control, but skimming it, it seemed fairly balanced in it's Q & A.

One question asks whether gun ownership deters tyranny and prevents genocide - "the core of gun-rights ideology" as the book says. First, we heard the pro-gun argument. Then the anti-gun argument. It was fairly intelligent, and I was wondering what you all have to say about it.

[...]Gun control advocates see these lessons differently. To them, the best guarantee against tyranny is a strong system of laws and ingrained traditions of tolerance and equality. States tend not to oppress their citizens if they have institutional arrangements that disperse power, safeguard individual rights and political representation, and have mechanisms for peacefully resolving disputes and transferring power. The longer such traditions are locked in, the harder they are to dislodge.

The founders rested their faith in a system of ordered liberty - not private gun owners - to frustrate would-be tyrants. To supporters of this institutional view of democracy, the mass ownership of firearms only increases mayhem. They note that gun violence is higher in societies with more guns and less regulation thereof, so there is a present day cost of stockpiling weapons. What's more, all those citizen gun owners can easily be mobilized to suppress freedom and threaten democracy - think the Klu Klux Klan in the American South or Hitler's brownshirts. Gun control advocates note that history is littered with examples of revolutionaries who took up arms to throw off tyranny but ended up establishing very undemocratic regimes - China, Russia, and Cuba for starters.

So is it true, as gun-rights supporters argue, that a connection exists between the restrictiveness of a country's civilian weapons policy and its "liability to commit genocide against it's people" - or even to impose tyranny upon them? The simplest and perhaps least satisfying answer is that we don't have enough data to judge. To feel comfortable asserting that guns preserve freedom, we would need to be able to point to well-armed democracies that have maintained their liberty, and poorly armed (but otherwise similar) democracies that have backslid into tyranny. The problem is that there are not a lot of countries in either category to justify sweeping conclusions.

[...]

Heavily-armed America is a long standing beacon of democracy, but so is the United Kingdom, even though few in Britain own guns. And as we discuss later, Germany was actually liberalizing its gun laws when Hitler came to power. [...] America has both strong democratic institutions and traditions and hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands. Which one is holding the nation together after more than two centuries is subject to opinion, not science.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The first part of the argument is simply false. Of course the founding fathers relied on gun rights to resist against tyranny. That's why we have the 2A. Also, to argue that revolutions were the product of gun rights is ridiculous. Don't tell me China had extensive gun rights for its citizens at any point of its long history.

The second part of the argument asks an impossible question by attempting to identify utopian and tyrannical societies that result solely from gun rights or the lack thereof, as if societal success or failure can be determine solely on gun rights.

The real question is simple. Should citizens have the right to defend themselves?
 
Last edited:
"A 'system of ordered liberty.' ":confused:

Well, at its best, yes; the Constitution guarantees the states a "republic" form of government (not "Republican Party." Decidedly NOT that! But they meant we were not a true pure democracy, but a republic, with a backbone of law and -- yes -- elected representatives to represent us [originally senators were elected by state representatives and that unfortunatly has changed]) and that was to be are primary "first defense."
Just about all forms of government, however, can become corrupt and one can easily scrounge through the Federalist Papers to determine the intent of the second amendment -- a last chance guarantee that, when all else failed, we would as a last ditch have arms to defend ourselves against the resultant tyranny.
Remember how the Revolutionary War began? There were many grievances applied to the Colonies, but we just didn't grab a bunch of flintlocks and start shooting Redcoats, we pleaded with King George through Commitees of correspondence and other measures to be fair.
It was when the Redcoats actively marched on Lexington & Concord to confiscate the Colonists' weaponry that they began to FIGHT, as they knew they would be better able to before the guns were siezed than after they were gone.
THAT, basically, constitutes my thoughts on how I'd deal with the above issue.
 
It sounds to me like the argument is to trust in the laws and traditions to not be oppressive. You don't need guns to stop the government when you can vote the rascals out. Personally I'd rather have a failsafe if 51% decide they really do not like me because I do not have that trust. Laws and traditions change, not always for the better.

Is that how others read that first paragraph? (the second does not contribute IMO)
 
The whole argument is fallacious because only a tyrannical government tries to suppress the God given rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Firearms are our natural defense against tyranny. You may argue (and you seem to do it frequently) that the restrictions placed upon the public by the government are only for the good of all, but in reality restrictions on law abiding citizens are merely there to secure the abilities of tyrants at all levels to convert citizens into subjects. Anyone who does not understand the difference between being a free citizen and a subject of the government should go back to basic government classes.
 
Germany was actually liberalizing its gun laws when Hitler came to power
Click to expand...

This is a rather disingenuous statement. The National Socialists passed the Nuremberg Laws shortly after coming to power, stripping German Jews of their citizenship and their rights.
 
Easy. The entire point of RKBA is to have a course of action when the paradigm falls apart. But you can't convince certain people, no matter how many times you point out the lessons history has for us all. Some folks simply refuse to believe that a despotic government is possible where they live right up to the point that they're being shackled and flogged for dissenting.
 
happygeek said:
This is a rather disingenuous statement. The National Socialists passed the Nuremberg Laws shortly after coming to power, stripping German Jews of their citizenship and their rights.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I thought that was one of the glaring factual omissions. As Stephen Halbrook has shown, registration and gun control passed by the Wiemar Republic for reasons of "public safety" - to disarm Nazis, were eventually used by those same Nazis to disarm Jews and political dissidents.

Steel Horse Rider said:
You may argue (and you seem to do it frequently) that the restrictions placed upon the public by the government are only for the good of all
Click to expand...

I've never argued that. I'm against all gun control - be it licensing, possession, purchase, what have you.

However, I sometimes ask questions in order to get a clearer understanding of certain aspects I'm not fully formed on. I also would like to be able to make the best case for gun rights that I can. I won't lie, I'm fascinated with the debate aspect, so sometimes I ask questions with the goal to be better at debating and have a more consistent argument.

I don't think asking questions - even if I do ever "play the other side" (one I don't subscribe to) as a way of learning and clarifying - should brand me as a heretic.

Isn't part of the purpose of this forum to learn? I have an opinion on this, but I wanted to see what other people would argue, so I held back on giving mine until later.
 
Last edited:
My problem with refuting an argument with that much error in it is that life is short and more than half of mine is over so I have better things to do.
 
Government naturally grows itself. Laws are meaningless if those in power ignore them. A good example would be Andrew Jackson ignoring the Supreme Court ruling on Native American's east of the Mississippi river: "John Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it."

We have other examples of the over reach of power throughout history, almost always for the "good" of some cause or another.
 
all those citizen gun owners can easily be mobilized to suppress freedom and threaten democracy - think the Klu Klux Klan in the American South
Click to expand...

Here's another glaring omission. I doubt that the authors have heard of the Deacons for Defense, a group founded by black veterans who used the Second Amendment to protect their neighborhoods from the Klan, as well as guard civil rights activists.
 
IlikeSA said:
Government naturally grows itself. Laws are meaningless if those in power ignore them. A good example would be Andrew Jackson ignoring the Supreme Court ruling on Native American's east of the Mississippi river: "John Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it."

We have other examples of the over reach of power throughout history, almost always for the "good" of some cause or another.
Click to expand...

Actually that's a bad example. Andrew Jackson didn't ignore the law, he ignored a SCOTUS decision.
A better example would be Obama ignoring immigration laws, his own healthcare reform laws, etc, etc.

However it is only fair to state I agree with your over all point.
 
MI, you said the book is well-balanced. What is the counter to that view that is actually in the book?


States tend not to oppress their citizens if they have institutional arrangements that disperse power, safeguard individual rights and political representation, and have mechanisms for peacefully resolving disputes and transferring power.
Click to expand...

Now I'm not that educated in world political systems, but I cannot think offhand of any developed nation that has disarmed its populace, and still incorporates, or is able to incorporate, all of those ideologies. Pretty much every nation with a 50+ year history of citizen disarmament has become substantially more oppressive, or at least, less mindful of individual rights previously recognized, than before that disarmament.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who uses the spurious phrase, "gun violence is higher in societies with more guns and less regulation" should be automatically suspect.
 
I'm always distrusting of anyone who quotes sources comparing the American society to that of other countries. Our Constitution has helped provide a societal development unheard of in world history.

The "American Revolution" is probably a misnomer. Revolution denotes a complete upheaval of existing government, and replacement with a new form. That did not happen in the colonies. Democratically-elected governments were already in place. The only part missing was a central government structure which would bind us together as a nation.

Individual liberties were recognized long before 1787, and no country since has been formed the same way. The French are now in their fifth version of the "Republic", yet are very socialist leaning. The British are practicing some sort of social democracy, which is more socialist than democratic.

The missing element is the recognition of the supremacy of the individual. These other countries have ignored their very own philosophers, Rousseau, Locke, etc., in their governmental structures. It's done for a reason, and that's so the government always maintains an upper hand.

And as many of you have noted, a government with the upper hand, whether municipal, state, or Federal, will always become despotic if not held in checked by a self-protected citizenry.
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Click to expand...

There does not need to be any evidence presented because these things are declared self-evident. It is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish tyranny and given that right comes the right to the capability of doing so, because a right without ability is not a right. The ability to throw off tyranny is not restricted solely to the use of arms, but arms may be considered as the last line of defense. And if it is the last in the lines of defense it is not acceptable to relinquish it just because it is the last in favor of some defensive action that is used previously.
 
@ MErl

It sounds to me like the argument is to trust in the laws and traditions to not be oppressive. You don't need guns to stop the government when you can vote the rascals out. Personally I'd rather have a failsafe if 51% decide they really do not like me because I do not have that trust. Laws and traditions change, not always for the better.

Who can you vote out tyrants when you can't trust them to tally the votes? Ever hear of Harry Reids son running the voting boothes for Nevada? We will never see a 4 year president ever again.

Remember what FDR said.... “Presidents are selected, not elected.”
 
We are different than Mother England. The Magna Carta was an agreement between the government and the governed, thus establishing certain rights.

The Declaration of Independence established rights of the people regardless of the government.....

Big difference.

I don't have it in front of me, but the Anti-Federalists actually spelled it out... A direct correlation between gun ownership and freedom from tyranny. Too bad they didn't work that into the Amendments.
 
herkyguy said:
We are different than Mother England. The Magna Carta was an agreement between the government and the governed, thus establishing certain rights.

The Declaration of Independence established rights of the people regardless of the government.....

Big difference.

I don't have it in front of me, but the Anti-Federalists actually spelled it out... A direct correlation between gun ownership and freedom from tyranny. Too bad they didn't work that into the Amendments.
Click to expand...
There are only three remaining clauses from the original 1215 document. Most were repealed in the nineteenth century. It also didn't limit the power of the king. It only provided for punishment if he exceeded the powers of the Magna Carta.

Great Britain still has no written constitution limiting the power of the British government.
 
Theres issues with all the statements pure and simple. The writer of this little book forgot that the magna carta only really came into existence because the ruling party had a knife at his throat while writing it.

The founding fathers gave us the inherent right to own weapons, and to organize into militias (not the current national guard system) so that when the elected representatives corrupted the laws and "social norms" into their own,
the repressed peoples could rise up and re establish the constitution and bill of rights.

the liberals and the lawyers and the anti gun crowd forget that the political system of checks and balances is a 4 step system, not the 3 step system we get taught in school

its the president, the supreme court, congress/senate, and armed peasents who uprise.

think about it. carefully. the revolution was armed men getting rid of a government that kept slowly changing laws into mere tyranny.
 
The core of this argument should be paragraph 2.

The founders rested their faith in a system of ordered liberty - not private gun owners - to frustrate would-be tyrants. To supporters of this institutional view of democracy, the mass ownership of firearms only increases mayhem. They note that gun violence is higher in societies with more guns and less regulation thereof, so there is a present day cost of stockpiling weapons. What's more, all those citizen gun owners can easily be mobilized to suppress freedom and threaten democracy - think the Klu Klux Klan in the American South or Hitler's brownshirts. Gun control advocates note that history is littered with examples of revolutionaries who took up arms to throw off tyranny but ended up establishing very undemocratic regimes - China, Russia, and Cuba for starters.
Click to expand...

Here is a simple logic test. The last sentence forgets to mention the founders, the heart of the author's premise, where our Founders took up arms to throw off tyranny to end up with a very democratic regime.

This excerpt is not from a well thought out argument. it is a collection of generalizations designed to underscore emotion.
 
The whole concept is utopian ideology

While protection from government tyranny may be a small percentage of why we have gun ownership, it is a very small part. The authors try to encapsulate it into a political standing when it truly is not.

We do not live in a utopian society. We live in a violent society. One has to have a means of protecting themselves - whether its from criminals or a tyrannical government, the founders knew each individual had the god given right to protect themselves and their families.

Even in a utopian society with no need for protection, guns would still be part of a sport enjoyed by many.

Bottom line. No guns or all guns - neither will ever stop violence in the few.
 
Without guns violence moves to other avenues. People who want to go on a rampage will drive an suv into a mall or subway station, or use some other item as a weapon. Society as a whole has trampled all around this with gun ownership...example...if a man has a pet tiger that lives and dies in a huge enclosure in his back yard then all is well. If that same man leaves the cage open and that tiger attacks the neighbors then that man is liable for his tigers actions because he had an act that leaves him criminally negligent. Either way that neighbor is injured or killed in the attack, and all fingers are pointed at the owner. Very little arises of whether tigers should be pets or not. Replace that tiger cage with a well built pistol range. Rather than leave a gate open in negligence our guy has a negligent discharge that escapes the range and hits the neighbor. The man is crucified by the media and people comes from miles around to say that guns need to be removed from society. The fact is that in either case our guy was responsible for a dangerous thing and allowed it to injure another person. The only difference is the emotional reaction by the masses led by the media who try to be Shephard to the flocks of viewers that are our society. Remove guns or tigers or SUVs, knives, baseball bats, or billyclubs, you still are left with the same problem, a violent society with an emotional response led by people with too much visibility with too much bias. The fact that a gun exists at all is irrelevant. The point is that people should be responsible for their own actions. Atheists believe that this premise led many groups of people to create every religion in the world, and in large part I see where that view comes from.

Utopia does not exist therefore people are violent by nature. The tools created by a violent culture are only as evil as the culture that created and uses them. We invented bombs that level cities and used them on civilians. We gave disease ridden food and materials to countless groups just to overtake them when they are fighting off the new diseases which make them weak. We have historically starved people, deprived them of water, tortured, killed, and enslaved people for our own personal gain. It is blatantly obvious that the human is the evil, not whatever tool is being used to serve up the evil to the masses.
 
To them, the best guarantee against tyranny is a strong system of laws and ingrained traditions of tolerance and equality.
Click to expand...

This statement needs added at the end : And the ability of the people to forcibly remove leaders who won't relinquish their Governmental Offices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Private gun ownership in Iraq
Replies
18
Views
2K
2dogs
2
N
  • Locked
Our well reasoned arguments against emotion.
Replies
12
Views
788
OldCowHand
O
Snejdarek
  • Locked
Timothy Snyder: On Tyranny - Twenty lessons from the 20th century
Replies
16
Views
1K
hso
hso
M
  • Locked
How to shut down the liberals "2nd Amendment doesn't allow nukes" argument
2 3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
5K
ctdonath
C
P
  • Locked
Assist me in replying to an anti?
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
iapetus
I
Back
Top