Refute this argument

[monotonous_iterancy]

MI, you said the book is well-balanced. What is the counter to that view that is actually in the book?

Well, I only skimmed it. I picked it up right after I picked up an anti-gun screed by a former Clinton guy. So, I wanted to see if this one was as untrustworthy. I went to the question on "assault weapons". It accurately stated that it was a semi-automatic weapon that had some features of a military rifle (explaining the single-shot difference), and listed some features - detatchable magazine, folding stock, bayonet mount, etc. It then mentioned the '94 law. It was dry and matter of fact.

The authors probably aren't gun-rights absolutists like we are, so I don't doubt that they support some gun control. They're probably not gun enthusiasts either. They're probably scholars (the book is published by Oxford University Press), so that perspective certainly colors it.

However, just from skimming it, the book seemed to be a genuine attempt to inform the uninformed about both sides of the gun debate - not a shameless propaganda piece.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

Here's the pro-gun view preceding the OP.

A core tenet of gun rights ideology is that “the people” must deny government a monopoly on the use of force. A well-armed citizenry is necessary to counterbalance the state and, if liberty so requires, to topple it. A corollary to this tenet is banning private ownership of guns, or even simply regulating them, makes tyranny – even genocide – more likely. Mass armament safeguards democracy by leaving to the people a right of insurrection if they judge that their government has gone astray. As Daniel Polsby and Don B. Kates Jr. argue, “An armed population is simply more difficult to exterminate than one that is defenseless.

Gun rights supporters draw on historical examples. American democracy is indebted to citizens who deployed their muskets to throw off the British Crown. So surely the founders intended for future patriots to maintain this right of revolt, and so they enshrined it in state and federal constitutions. A Supreme Court majority embraced this view in 2008, when it agreed that a citizens’ milita served as a “safeguard against tyranny.” Ardent gun rights supporters go further, citing Thomas Jefferson’s admonition that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” And, indeed, a recent poll found that 44% of Republicans (but only 18% of Democrats and 27% of independents) believed that to preserve liberty, an armed revolution may be needed in the next few years.

To these gun advocates, the horrors of the twentieth century only strengthen the argument that an armed people are a free people. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot are invoked as evidence for what can happen when the people have no means of mustering private force against madmen. As the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre has argued, “If every family on this planet owned a good-quality rifle, genocide would be on the path to extinction.” To the argument that, well, “it can’t happen here” in the United States or any other advanced industrialized democracy, gun rights theorists say that is just blind conceit. Genocides have happened “among civilized, educated, cultured people,” and even the United States has its own shameful track record in the form of Indian massacres and Japanese internment.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

Anyone that can write about 'The Klan', and misspell their name is 'Klu'-less...

Oh, and that was my typo. My bad!

 

[bainter1212]

I haven't read all the posts but.....

I would say that trusting human beings to maintain a fair and orderly system of government is historically, statistically foolish. Time and time (and time) again, humanity has proven itself to be brutish, backsliding to genocide and pillage/rape whenever the conditions have presented us with the opportunity.
I will trust humanity to remain at peace when I see the physical evolutionary steps necessary to make that happen.

Otherwise, it is apparent to me, that humanity is just as capable of doing bad things as it was 100,000 years ago.

 

[orionengnr]

Heavily-armed America is a long standing beacon of democracy, but so is the United Kingdom, even though few in Britain own guns.

Many would argue that Great Britain has slid quite a ways down the slippery slope towards tyranny.
--They have a civilian monitoring (camera) system that is (AFAIK) unmatched.
--They are being slowly (or not so slowly, depending on who you listen to) overrun by Muslim immigrants. This is due to their own willful failure to control their borders.
--They have effectively outlawed self-defense, and have imprisoned a number of their own citizens for daring to defend themselves and their homesteads.

Is that a "beacon of democracy"? Perhaps in your estimation.
In mine, they have become another cowardly, politically-correct socialist state. Their demise is assured and nearly complete.

The Great Britain of WWII is long gone, and those who defended her are rolling over in their graves.

That is our current direction, and is our destiny, unless we change course immediately and dramatically.

Let me put it another way:
Any form of government that resists or restricts the private ownership of firearms is, by definition, oppressive.
Our system has lost a lot of ground from what it once was, but is still the least oppressive of any nation I can name.

I would much rather have the level of freedom we had when I was a young man, but I believe that ship has sailed.
I, and a number of friends and acquaintances, mourn the passage of what we once had, and would move elsewhere, especially as we approach retirement age.

But there is nowhere to go. Like it or not, and diminished as our liberties are, we are still the only game in town.

Mr. Reagan had it right many years ago. What we lose here is lost to humanity forever.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

A core tenet of gun rights ideology is that “the people” must deny government a monopoly on the use of force. A well-armed citizenry is necessary to counterbalance the state and, if liberty so requires, to topple it. A corollary to this tenet is banning private ownership of guns, or even simply regulating them, makes tyranny – even genocide – more likely. Mass armament safeguards democracy by leaving to the people a right of insurrection if they judge that their government has gone astray. As Daniel Polsby and Don B. Kates Jr. argue, “An armed population is simply more difficult to exterminate than one that is defenseless.

Even this presents much that is flat out wrong. Mass armament safeguards FREEDOM, not democracy.

It's not a right to insurrection, but the power to defeat those who insurrect against freedom - such as tyrants, dictators, and others with megalomaniacal hegemonic designs. THEY are the ones who rebel against the established authority which, in this land, is the Constitution for the United States.

In the last sentence in the above quoted paragraph, 'exterminate' is the wrong word to use in this context. The correct word is 'enslave.' Think about it.

Woody

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

Many would argue that Great Britain has slid quite a ways down the slippery slope towards tyranny.

The things you mentioned are true, but it goes much further. The UK has lost many other rights. Along with gun rights, and widespread video surveillance, they have also lost other things. Last year, Billy_Shears posted about that on this forum, and I'll reprint his words, with a more accessible format.

Needless to say, contrary to the anti-gun argument, they don't seem like shining model of freedom to compare ourselves to.

In the UK there have been restrictions on other civil liberties as well.

-There is no longer any right to a grand jury; it was abolished in 1933.

-Britain's highest court has upheld a law ordering newspaper publishers to obtain a government license and to post bond with the government.

-Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods.

- The American doctrine of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" bars use of evidence derived from leads developed in a coerced confession; Britain allows use of such evidence.

- Even the traditional right to silence has been abolished, as 1994 legislation now allows a defendant's silence to be used as evidence against him.

- Wiretaps do not need judicial approval.

- Upon instructions of police administrators, officers in several jurisdictions have begun compiling Japanese-style dossiers on individuals in their locality.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

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.

Simple: it only takes one huge catastrophe, or a series of catastrophes to throw the democratic society into total and utter chaos. When this happens, the "strong system of laws and ingrained traditions of tolerance and equality" all goes to hell. Furthermore, in order for the state to regain any semblance of control, it has to hammer everyone into order, regardless of if you are a good guy or a bad guy. This means stripping away everyone's rights, regardless of who you are.

So this crap: 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.All goes out the window.

On the other hand, if you have a well armed citizenry who, yes, have freedom and justice and the traditions of democracy ingrained and "locked in" then there will be a semblance of order. The bad guys won't be able to destroy everything and loot and pillage at will. Order will arise because the well armed, well educated and fair minded citizens will help the government get back order, and not vice versa.

 

[mnrivrat]

Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment & this :

"97th Congress
2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
REPORT
OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION"

The most comprehensive study ever done on the subject - read it and you will find plenty of reference to apply to the argument.