Hello Pham.

[Socrates]

 

deleted by Socrates - formatting problems

Edited January 8, 2013 by Socrates

[Era Might]

Besides, we all know that there's nothing fascist dictators love more than an armed and ready private citizenry.  Just ask old Adolph.

 

Hitler was the product of an armed and ready private citizenry. He was duking it out with the authorities in Munich long before he came to power in Berlin. That's why he had to mollify the SA when he came to power...they were armed and ready, and it no longer served his purposes.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Era Might

[4588686]

Thank you, Socrates.  That was a very intelligent and thoughtful response.  I'm glad you really brought your A-Game today :D

 

No, my name is not r2Dtoo.  :)

[Socrates]

The Framers weren't fascists.  Having guns isn't fascist.  Nor did I say that believing that individuals should have a right to bear arms is fascist. . . .blah, blah

 

I didn't call anybody a fascist.  

 So your "brown shirt" and "proto-fascist" cracks are nonsense unrelated to what anybody actually said here.  Got it.

 

 

 

Extreme can be good or bad.   . . . waaugh!  waaugh!

 

 

 

Is your name r2Dtoo?

[Socrates]

Hitler was the product of an armed and ready private citizenry. He was duking it out with the authorities in Munich long before he came to power in Berlin. That's why he had to mollify the SA when he came to power...they were armed and ready, and it no longer served his purposes.

 

Hitler confiscated guns from his subjects who might oppose him.

 

Tyrants prefer unarmed subjects.

 

Trying to associate the right of the people to keep and bear arms (as found in the second amendment, and supported by all the American founding fathers) with Nazism or Fascism is beyond stupid.

[4588686]

So your "brown shirt" and "proto-fascist" cracks are nonsense unrelated to what anybody actually said hed.   . . . waaugh!  waaugh!

&n

 

 

LOL!!!!  Good one Socrates.  That's def what he said and you nailed him on it!!!   :winner:  :winner:  :flex2:  :flex2:  :winner:  :winner:

LOL!!!!  Good one Socrates.  That's def what he said and you nailed him on it!!!   :winner:  :winner:  :flex2:  :flex2:  :winner:  :winner:

 

Actually, Socrates was just apparently once again unable to understand what I said.  I actually specifically addressed his inane argument previously when I rhetorically asked if perhaps there was a difference between 'fascism' and 'proto-fascism.'  I did refer to the group as 'proto-fascist' but I neverer claimed that there were fascists or Nazis.

[Era Might]

Hitler confiscated guns from his subjects who might oppose him.

 

Tyrants prefer unarmed subjects.

 

Trying to associate the right of the people to keep and bear arms (as found in the second amendment, and supported by all the American founding fathers) with Nazism or Fascism is beyond stupid.

 

I doubt there's been many governments on the face of the earth that didn't disarm subjects that opposed them (and that includes laws against treason).

 

Hitler suppressed his enemies once he came to power for that very reason. Before he came to power, he was one of those "armed subjects."

 

The Nazis, in their early years, kept and bore arms. They were a private citizenry before they become the ruling power. The authorities in Munich had to try and control the access to weaponry by private militias like the SA, precisely because an "armed and ready private citizenry" is a precondition for someone like Hitler to rise to power.

 

The bearing of arms is not unique to the United States. Another example of an "armed and ready private citizenry" is the assassination of Julius Caesar. Shakespeare wrote a whole play on the implications of his assassination, and the ambiguity of the noble character of an "armed and ready private citizenry."

 

 

The noble Brutus

Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.

 

Edited January 9, 2013 by Era Might

[4588686]

 

Hitler suppressed his enemies once he came to power for that very reason. Before he came to power, he was one of those "armed subjects."

 

The Nazis, in their early years, kept and bore arms. They were a private citizenry before they become the ruling power. The authorities in Munich had to try and control the access to weaponry by private militias like the SA, precisely because an "armed and ready private citizenry" is a precondition for someone like Hitler to rise to power.

 

Hmmmmmmm  :scholar:

[missionseeker]

You have GOT to be joking.

Uh, guys, this is a joke, right?

Guys?

This probably belongs in a different thread, but no, he is not joking. And he is not just talking about pot (although Feds have arrested several pot farmers who were licensed in the state of California where it is legal)

Vegetable garden "unsuitable" in the front yard -
http://www.viciousbabushka.com/2011/07/michigan-woman-arrested-for-vegetable-garden-and-no-pot-plants.html

Here it is from HuffPo in case someone needs that back up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/07/08/julie-bass-jail-vegetable-garden_n_893436.html


This lady was threatened with a 60k$ fine for legally owning a lemon tree. http://www.naturalnews.com/033758_USDA_lemon_tree.html

Michigan pig farmers forced to kill all (of certain breeds) of their pigs or face fines. The same pigs that bred and used for meat by large companies. http://rt.com/usa/news/liz-wahls-pig-farms-965/

Even as far back as 1940. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn


And don't get me started on Monsanto and their lobbyists and lawsuits.
http://m.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/eight-ways-monsanto-fails.html Edited January 9, 2013 by missionseeker

[Socrates]

I doubt there's been many governments on the face of the earth that didn't disarm subjects that opposed them (and that includes laws against treason).

 

Hitler suppressed his enemies once he came to power for that very reason. Before he came to power, he was one of those "armed subjects."

 

The Nazis, in their early years, kept and bore arms. They were a private citizenry before they become the ruling power. The authorities in Munich had to try and control the access to weaponry by private militias like the SA, precisely because an "armed and ready private citizenry" is a precondition for someone like Hitler to rise to power.

 

The bearing of arms is not unique to the United States. Another example of an "armed and ready private citizenry" is the assassination of Julius Caesar. Shakespeare wrote a whole play on the implications of his assassination, and the ambiguity of the noble character of an "armed and ready private citizenry."

So, do you believe that those in power should always have complete and absolute power over their subjects who must be defenseless to resist them, or do you believe (as the American founders did) that governments can become tyrannical, and that citizens should have the means to resist tyranny if necessary?

 

Of course governments (especially tyrannical ones) have always sought to keep those who would oppose them powerless and helpless to resist, but the original ideal of the American founders (though since much compromised, of course) was to have a self-governing republic by the people, rather than a tyranny.

 

I never claimed that the idea of an armed citizenry is unique to the US, though I bring up the American founding fathers to point out that it is very much part of our own American history and tradition, rather than some kind of fascist or Nazi thing like you seem to imply.  

(I don't know if you're straining really hard to prove the truth of Godwin's law or what, but the whole "Nazis had guns; therefore support of gun rights is Nazi-ish" spiel is just as silly as "Hitler was a vegetarian; therefore vegetarians are evil!"  Besides, the Nazis came to power after Hitler was democratically elected chancelor, not through armed revolution.  But since Communists came to power through armed revolution, once could just as easily [and nonsensically] call the right to bear arms "Communist" or "leftist" as "fascist.")

 

The founding fathers in their writings explicitly touted the idea of a citizenry owning arms and trained in their use as a bulwark against tyranny by their own government if necessary.  They generally distrusted a standing army, which they regarded as often being a tool of oppression, preferring defense by militias made up of every citizen capable of bearing arms.  Thus the armed people would stand as a defense against tyranny both foreign and domestic.

 

While I know you and others on here likely do not share this ideal, personally, I think it is one well worth reviving.

[4588686]

I never claimed that the idea of an armed citizenry is unique to the US, though I bring up the American founding fathers to point out that it is very much part of our own American history and tradition, rather than some kind of fascist or Nazi thing like you seem to imply.  

 

Not really what he was implying.  

 

Edited January 9, 2013 by Hasan

[Era Might]

So, do you believe that those in power should always have complete and absolute power over their subjects who must be defenseless to resist them, or do you believe (as the American founders did) that governments can become tyrannical, and that citizens should have the means to resist tyranny if necessary?

 

 

I don't know, it's not something I've thought much about. But in my limited historical experience I find that revolutionaries tend to be selective about the right to revolution. If citizens have the right to resist the government, then that presents a whole host of problems, not the least of which is the right to private military power. If the American people truly have a right to resist the government, then they should have access to bombs and even nuclear weapons, since that is how modern warfare is fought.

 

 

Of course governments (especially tyrannical ones) have always sought to keep those who would oppose them powerless and helpless to resist, but the original ideal of the American founders (though since much compromised, of course) was to have a self-governing republic by the people, rather than a tyranny.

 

 

The question is how radically one wants to conceive a "self-governing republic." Modern society is not ruled by 18th century ideals like "freedom" and "republic." Our society is ruled by technique, efficiency, order, standardization. This is what has made us such an affluent, technologically driven society...but, of course, it wouldn't much serve in the context of an 18th century pre-industrial society. America cannot be both a "superpower" and a "self-governing republic."

 

 

I never claimed that the idea of an armed citizenry is unique to the US, though I bring up the American founding fathers to point out that it is very much part of our own American history and tradition, rather than some kind of fascist or Nazi thing like you seem to imply.  

(I don't know if you're straining really hard to prove the truth of Godwin's law or what, but the whole "Nazis had guns; therefore support of gun rights is Nazi-ish" spiel is just as silly as "Hitler was a vegetarian; therefore vegetarians are evil!"  Besides, the Nazis came to power after Hitler was democratically elected chancelor, not through armed revolution.  But since Communists came to power through armed revolution, once could just as easily [and nonsensically] call the right to bear arms "Communist" or "leftist" as "fascist.")

 

 

You brought up the Nazis. I was responding to your historically questionable attempt to connect Hitler with gun control. You are correct that Hitler, when he came to power, did so democratically (though that's not entirely true, the SA still loomed in the background). But that was after his failed putsch in the early '20s. He realized that he had to first seek political legitimacy and then take control. In other words, he failed as a "privately armed citizen," and sought to become a state-armed ruler.

 

You, not me, are the one trying to connect gun rights with a people's right to revolution. That is the context in which the Nazi party was born. The SA was a private militia (not the only one in Germany, other political parties had their enforcers). You are trying to disassociate the Nazis from a general right to revolt. But Germany in the 1920s was a country in turmoil, and the Nazis were one of the parties trying to win a voice for a new Germany.

 

The fact is that the lack of gun control in Munich in the 1920s was a factor in the rise of the Nazi party. There was a lack of order and a loss of control by the established authorities, who were threatened by private militias like the SA (as seen in Hitler's failed putsch). Private citizens do not create individual revolutions, they create them through parties (Nazis, Bolsheviks, Sandinistas, etc). You can wax poetic about the right of the people to guns and revolution, but there's nothing romantic about it. In fact, one can see the contemporary gangs as, in some sense, the "parties" of certain groups in society. The KKK was another "party" in its day.

 

The appeal to self-defense in gun rights has more valid grounds than the appeal to revolution, because self-defense is the defense of the powerless. It is individual and specific to occasions of violence, a desperate attempt to repel an aggressor. But once you start connecting gun rights and revolution, then you move from the individual to the party, from the occasional to the systemic, because revolutions are not fought to repel something but to create something new. The current ideology of "gun rights" in America, if it is truly taken seriously, leads to organized parties rather than more empowered individuals. America just happens to have something that Germany did not have: a functioning democracy. "Gun rights" advocates in America are more likely to channel their ideology through the government rather than a private party...which is why "gun rights" people also tend to align with the Republican party and that general strain of a "strong military," "tough on crime," "tough on immigration," etc. The marginalized in society, who do not associate with the official government, seek gangs through which to channel their gun rights.

 

The founding fathers in their writings explicitly touted the idea of a citizenry owning arms and trained in their use as a bulwark against tyranny by their own government if necessary.  They generally distrusted a standing army, which they regarded as often being a tool of oppression, preferring defense by militias made up of every citizen capable of bearing arms.  Thus the armed people would stand as a defense against tyranny both foreign and domestic.

 

While I know you and others on here likely do not share this ideal, personally, I think it is one well worth reviving.

 

 

This is a fantasy. Disband the army and replace it with private militias? As I said before, modern society is based on technique, technology, efficiency, organized power. This is supremely realized in the US military, which has become the most efficient, powerful, and technically advanced force the world has ever seen. The idea of a "self-governing republic" is a fantasy from the 18th century. The American empire would fall if it tried to go back to a pre-industrial society of farmers.

 

And I am not necessarily against the fall of the American empire. Perhaps you are right that we need to revive certain lost principles, regardless of the consequences. But you can't serve two masters. Either you want a self-governing republic or a superpower empire. Either you want a grossly affluent society that has mastered the technique of capitalism, or you want a society that seeks moderation and values.

 

This is not the 18th century, however noble you think that century was. That is not to say we cannot still value and learn from those original ideals, but we can't reconstruct a fantasy of American society.

 

If, as you say, the people have a right to revolution, then do they not have a right to interpretation? We may be able to avoid a revolution AND retain original ideals, if we accept the necessity of creative interpretation and adaptation.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Era Might

[Socrates]

I don't know, it's not something I've thought much about. But in my limited historical experience I find that revolutionaries tend to be selective about the right to revolution. If citizens have the right to resist the government, then that presents a whole host of problems, not the least of which is the right to private military power. If the American people truly have a right to resist the government, then they should have access to bombs and even nuclear weapons, since that is how modern warfare is fought.

 

 

 

 

The question is how radically one wants to conceive a "self-governing republic." Modern society is not ruled by 18th century ideals like "freedom" and "republic." Our society is ruled by technique, efficiency, order, standardization. This is what has made us such an affluent, technologically driven society...but, of course, it wouldn't much serve in the context of an 18th century pre-industrial society. America cannot be both a "superpower" and a "self-governing republic."

 

 

 

You brought up the Nazis. I was responding to your historically questionable attempt to connect Hitler with gun control. You are correct that Hitler, when he came to power, did so democratically (though that's not entirely true, the SA still loomed in the background). But that was after his failed putsch in the early '20s. He realized that he had to first seek political legitimacy and then take control. In other words, he failed as a "privately armed citizen," and sought to become a state-armed ruler.

 

You, not me, are the one trying to connect gun rights with a people's right to revolution. That is the context in which the Nazi party was born. The SA was a private militia (not the only one in Germany, other political parties had their enforcers). You are trying to disassociate the Nazis from a general right to revolt. But Germany in the 1920s was a country in turmoil, and the Nazis were one of the parties trying to win a voice for a new Germany.

 

The fact is that the lack of gun control in Munich in the 1920s was a factor in the rise of the Nazi party. There was a lack of order and a loss of control by the established authorities, who were threatened by private militias like the SA (as seen in Hitler's failed putsch). Private citizens do not create individual revolutions, they create them through parties (Nazis, Bolsheviks, Sandinistas, etc). You can wax poetic about the right of the people to guns and revolution, but there's nothing romantic about it. In fact, one can see the contemporary gangs as, in some sense, the "parties" of certain groups in society. The KKK was another "party" in its day.

 

The appeal to self-defense in gun rights has more valid grounds than the appeal to revolution, because self-defense is the defense of the powerless. It is individual and specific to occasions of violence, a desperate attempt to repel an aggressor. But once you start connecting gun rights and revolution, then you move from the individual to the party, from the occasional to the systemic, because revolutions are not fought to repel something but to create something new. The current ideology of "gun rights" in America, if it is truly taken seriously, leads to organized parties rather than more empowered individuals. America just happens to have something that Germany did not have: a functioning democracy. "Gun rights" advocates in America are more likely to channel their ideology through the government rather than a private party...which is why "gun rights" people also tend to align with the Republican party and that general strain of a "strong military," "tough on crime," "tough on immigration," etc. The marginalized in society, who do not associate with the official government, seek gangs through which to channel their gun rights.

 

 

 

 

This is a fantasy. Disband the army and replace it with private militias? As I said before, modern society is based on technique, technology, efficiency, organized power. This is supremely realized in the US military, which has become the most efficient, powerful, and technically advanced force the world has ever seen. The idea of a "self-governing republic" is a fantasy from the 18th century. The American empire would fall if it tried to go back to a pre-industrial society of farmers.

 

And I am not necessarily against the fall of the American empire. Perhaps you are right that we need to revive certain lost principles, regardless of the consequences. But you can't serve two masters. Either you want a self-governing republic or a superpower empire. Either you want a grossly affluent society that has mastered the technique of capitalism, or you want a society that seeks moderation and values.

 

This is not the 18th century, however noble you think that century was. That is not to say we cannot still value and learn from those original ideals, but we can't reconstruct a fantasy of American society.

 

If, as you say, the people have a right to revolution, then do they not have a right to interpretation? We may be able to avoid a revolution AND retain original ideals, if we accept the necessity of creative interpretation and adaptation.

 

You've written a lot here, so pardon me if I don't adequately address every single point you've brought up.

 

While elsewhere you've said a lot against modern bureaucratic institutionalism, you seem a bit too eager to grant an ever-greater monopoly of unchecked power through violence to the ultimate bureaucratic institution - the modern leviathon state - at the expense of individual liberty and power.

 

As I (and the founding fathers) see it, the chief purpose of an armed citizenry trained in combat is primarily as a deterrent and defense against aggression or forcible oppression of the citizenry by tyranny both foreign and domestic, rather than as a means of promoting violent revolution.  I certainly don't regard all armed revolution as good, but do see it as a viable last resort to be used only in extreme circumstances.  To use an obvious example, I wouldn't have a problem with armed resistance against the genocidal government of Nazi Germany.

 

The founder's idea of the country being primarily defended by state militias made up of every citizen, rather than a standing army, was that it would be much harder for a government to forcibly oppress citizens and violate their rights, if in essence those citizens are the army - as opposed to a government backed by armed force being able easily subjugate unarmed and helpless civilians.

 

 

I brought up Hitler and the Nazis originally to demonstrate the absurdity of Hasan's accusations of Akalyte's group as being somehow fascistic (though I realize that fascism and Nazism are not actually identical).  The gist of your argument seems to be that lax "gun-control" (in reality, citizen-control) policies on the part of the Weimar Republic are to blame for the Nazis rise to power, and that government "gun control" measures are necessary to prevent similar groups from coming to power here in the States.  I think that a right to bear arms in reality had little to do with the rise of the Nazi Party to power - which was more the result of Hitler's effective rhetorical demagoguery, the failure of the Weimar state, and the miserable condition of the German economy.  After all, the "gun control" policies of the US and other countries were certainly no less lax than those of Germany, yet there were not  armed revolutions by Nazi-like groups in those countries.

And if (as according to the founders' ideal) every citizen is part of the armed militia, it becomes harder for small groups of violent thugs to seize power and oppress others.

 

This boils down to people's right to self-defense. If the state itself becomes tyrannical or oppressive, without an armed citizenry, there is no means for citizens to defend themselves.  Unarmed citizens are helpless against an armed government and gangs of armed thugs who always find a way to obtain weapons despite the law.  (Mexico has much stricter gun laws than the US, yet armed gang violence is much more prevalent.)

 

You can dismiss all the talk of the right to bear arms and an armed citizenry as a quaint fantasy irrelevant to modern reality, but I believe the "old" values always remain relevant, even if not often put in practice.  I don't think its currently feasible to do away with the standing armed forces, but I believe a revival of the "well-regulated militia" of the several states would be a positive thing, even if there is currently little likelihood of this happening in the current political-social climate.  In any case, I am opposed to the state continuing to erode the the rights of citizens to self-defense. 

 

The central question of this debate is: do citizens have a right to defend themselves and their rights, or should this right be abdicated entirely to government?

 

I also believe that freedom and self-governance and other "old-fashioned" virtues are what helped America become a great nation, and that with their increasing abandonment today will result in America's continued and accelerated fall from greatness.  But that's a topic for another debate.

[Era Might]

While elsewhere you've said a lot against modern bureaucratic institutionalism, you seem a bit too eager to grant an ever-greater monopoly of unchecked power through violence to the ultimate bureaucratic institution - the modern leviathon state - at the expense of individual liberty and power.

 

 

I do not subscribe to the duality between "government" and "individual liberty." I don't think capitalism and free markets is proof of "individual liberty." Government and business are both organizing structures of human society. And given the choice between corporations motivated by profit, and governments motivated by politics, I generally give greater weight to government; not because government is any less corruptible, but because it is at least answerable to society.

 

 

As I (and the founding fathers) see it, the chief purpose of an armed citizenry trained in combat is primarily as a deterrent and defense against aggression or forcible oppression of the citizenry by tyranny both foreign and domestic, rather than as a means of promoting violent revolution.  I certainly don't regard all armed revolution as good, but do see it as a viable last resort to be used only in extreme circumstances.  To use an obvious example, I wouldn't have a problem with armed resistance against the genocidal government of Nazi Germany.

 

The founder's idea of the country being primarily defended by state militias made up of every citizen, rather than a standing army, was that it would be much harder for a government to forcibly oppress citizens and violate their rights, if in essence those citizens are the army - as opposed to a government backed by armed force being able easily subjugate unarmed and helpless civilians.

 

 

Ok, you believe in private militias. Good luck with that. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I just don't know what to say except good luck, because if you're putting your defense in the hands of private militias, you're all dead.

 

 

I brought up Hitler and the Nazis originally to demonstrate the absurdity of Hasan's accusations of Akalyte's group as being somehow fascistic (though I realize that fascism and Nazism are not actually identical).  The gist of your argument seems to be that lax "gun-control" (in reality, citizen-control) policies on the part of the Weimar Republic are to blame for the Nazis rise to power, and that government "gun control" measures are necessary to prevent similar groups from coming to power here in the States.  I think that a right to bear arms in reality had little to do with the rise of the Nazi Party to power - which was more the result of Hitler's effective rhetorical demagoguery, the failure of the Weimar state, and the miserable condition of the German economy.  After all, the "gun control" policies of the US and other countries were certainly no less lax than those of Germany, yet there were not  armed revolutions by Nazi-like groups in those countries.

And if (as according to the founders' ideal) every citizen is part of the armed militia, it becomes harder for small groups of violent thugs to seize power and oppress others.

 

 

I never said anything about Nazis coming to power in the United States. That's because the United States has control of its military and social institutions.

 

My point about Nazi Germany was about the logic of bearing arms, not about an historical comparison between this or that country.

 

The gun problem in America is manifested primarily through organized gangs rather than through political parties, because American political parties have the US military to do their fighting. If you want to create citizen-militias to fight the drug cartels and street gangs, good luck.

 

We are unlikely to agree on the historical point raised, but I will simply say in response that Hitler's "disarming" of the people had nothing to do with his rise to power, either, contrary to your attempt to frame him in terms of gun control.

 

 

This boils down to people's right to self-defense. If the state itself becomes tyrannical or oppressive, without an armed citizenry, there is no means for citizens to defend themselves.  Unarmed citizens are helpless against an armed government and gangs of armed thugs who always find a way to obtain weapons despite the law.  (Mexico has much stricter gun laws than the US, yet armed gang violence is much more prevalent.)

 

 

Mexico also has a weak and corrupt government. The fact is that if your "citizen militia" idea were instituted in Mexico, the cartels would probably take over the whole country.

 

 

You can dismiss all the talk of the right to bear arms and an armed citizenry as a quaint fantasy irrelevant to modern reality, but I believe the "old" values always remain relevant, even if not often put in practice.  I don't think its currently feasible to do away with the standing armed forces, but I believe a revival of the "well-regulated militia" of the several states would be a positive thing, even if there is currently little likelihood of this happening in the current political-social climate.  In any case, I am opposed to the state continuing to erode the the rights of citizens to self-defense.

 

 

Guru from Gang Starr says in one of his songs, "The streets are war, that's what brothers carry weapons for." The right to bear arms is in fact alive and well, and the body count proves it.

 

As for a "well-regulated militia," you are putting it in the hands of the state, a government institution. If anything, there should be truly private militias. The KKK has as much a right to bear arms (and bombs, and anything else necessary to modern warfare) as the Texas National Guard.

 

 

The central question of this debate is: do citizens have a right to defend themselves and their rights, or should this right be abdicated entirely to government?

 

 

It's already abdicated entirely to government. If we're going to defend ourselves, then get rid of the US military and the police and let people patrol their own streets.

 

 

I also believe that freedom and self-governance and other "old-fashioned" virtues are what helped America become a great nation, and that with their increasing abandonment today will result in America's continued and accelerated fall from greatness.  But that's a topic for another debate.

 

 

We just disagree. Consumerism and "manifest destiny" are what made America a superpower. Trying to create a fantasyland of the 18th century will ensure America's downfall.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Era Might

[Socrates]

I do not subscribe to the duality between "government" and "individual liberty." I don't think capitalism and free markets is proof of "individual liberty." Government and business are both organizing structures of human society. And given the choice between corporations motivated by profit, and governments motivated by politics, I generally give greater weight to government; not because government is any less corruptible, but because it is at least answerable to society.

 

 

I'm not really sure what exactly "capitalism" and free markets have to do with the right to own and bear arms and the "gun control" issue at hand, but I am sure I disagree with your rosy view of government compared with free enterprise.

 

In a free market, I have a choice (at least to a large extent) of whom to buy from and do business with and whom not to.

However, I have no choice with regard to what government programs I pay taxes for.  Now, private businesses do not even have a choice not to pay for insurance which violates their conscience and religious beliefs, thanks to the HHS mandate.  If I don't pay what the government demands, I can be hauled away at gunpoint and locked up.

 

Also, I don't share your superstitious faith in "democracy" (mob rule) and the inherent goodness and wisdom of "society" (whatever exactly that means).  History and current experience show that oftentimes the majority is quite happy to trample on the rights of the minority when it suits them.  Today we have a voting populace increasingly happy to give up constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms for comfort and the promise of publicly-funded goodies from politicians, and a government increasingly eager to take them away.

 

 

Ok, you believe in private militias. Good luck with that. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I just don't know what to say except good luck, because if you're putting your defense in the hands of private militias, you're all dead.

If you read my whole post, you'll note that I said that I'm not convinced getting rid of the standing army (unlike my anarchist/libertarian brethren).  However, it's undeniable that a population made up of armed and trained citizen-soldiers would be much harder to conquer or subjugate.  It would make our country stronger, not weaker.

 

 

 

 

I never said anything about Nazis coming to power in the United States. That's because the United States has control of its military and social institutions.

 

My point about Nazi Germany was about the logic of bearing arms, not about an historical comparison between this or that country.

 

The gun problem in America is manifested primarily through organized gangs rather than through political parties, because American political parties have the US military to do their fighting. If you want to create citizen-militias to fight the drug cartels and street gangs, good luck.

 

We are unlikely to agree on the historical point raised, but I will simply say in response that Hitler's "disarming" of the people had nothing to do with his rise to power, either, contrary to your attempt to frame him in terms of gun control.

I think "gun control" is largely irrelevant to the Nazis' rise to power.

However, it's historical fact that once the Nazis were in power, they passed gun registration laws similar to those favored by today's "gun control" "liberals," and proceeded to use the information gained to forcibly disarm all Jews, so they would be powerless to resist Nazi aggression.

 

While I'm not so paranoid as to think our government is currently plotting some Nazi-style holocaust of its domestic opponents, neither am I so naive as to trust that the government will not (and does not) abuse its power.

 

 

 

 

Mexico also has a weak and corrupt government. The fact is that if your "citizen militia" idea were instituted in Mexico, the cartels would probably take over the whole country.

 

 

 

 

Guru from Gang Starr says in one of his songs, "The streets are war, that's what brothers carry weapons for." The right to bear arms is in fact alive and well, and the body count proves it.

 

As for a "well-regulated militia," you are putting it in the hands of the state, a government institution. If anything, there should be truly private militias. The KKK has as much a right to bear arms (and bombs, and anything else necessary to modern warfare) as the Texas National Guard.

You've admitted that  laws are quite ineffective in keeping guns out of the hands of murderous criminal gangs, who often obtain their weapons illegally.

 

All your favored "gun control" laws would do is disarm millions of law-abiding citizens, and render them completely helpless against aggression.

 

While you may think a world in which only violent criminal gangs and governments have weapons and the means to defense - and ordinary citizens are completely helpless and at their mercy - is a wonderful thing, I do not.  But, as you say, different worldviews.

 

I've tried to briefly outline the thought behind the founders' vision of militia's made of citizen-soldiers, but if you're truly interested in the details of how the "militia of the several states" could be revived and work in modern times, you might check out this book: http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Homeland-Security-Americans-Revitalize/dp/0967175925/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357948549&sr=8-1&keywords=constitutional+homeland+security

 

But in any case, I see no need for or advantage to the government further depriving citizens of the right to arms and self-defense.

 

 

 

It's already abdicated entirely to government. If we're going to defend ourselves, then get rid of the US military and the police and let people patrol their own streets.

With regards to national defense against foreign enemies, essentially yes, though I don't regard this as a positive thing.

I'm not an anarchist, and don't advocate abolishing the military and police - though I don't think they should be the first line of defense.  People should be allowed to defend their own homes and businesses.  It's often too late by the time cops are able to arrive on the scene.

 

 

 

We just disagree. Consumerism and "manifest destiny" are what made America a superpower. Trying to create a fantasyland of the 18th century will ensure America's downfall.

Well, that's, like, your opinion, man.

 

 

Bloated, unsustainable government, and wildly profligate spending have already ensured America's downfall, unless something is done to radically change course.