2nd Amendment; Why it's so important.

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Thusly, the government will be far less likely to become tyrannical if it fears that an armed population may not be willing to comply with such tyranny...China seems quite secure as did the Soviet Union for most of its history but neither nation's population was (or in the case of China is) free.

True indeed Webley, just being secure isn't enough but having guns doesn't do it either.

Look at Somalia or many other third world countries. Plenty of arms, and I mean the good stuff (machineguns, rocket launchers) that you and I have debated over but are they free? I have been to some of those places and I assure you they are not. They live short brutish lives but they are well armed.

While I agree that right to arms alone does not make a population free, it goes a long way towards it. If you look at most of the atrocities that we see comitted in the third world, we find that it's typically one segment of the population that is well armed dominating or killing another segment that, for whatever reason, has inferior weapons or is totally unarmed. Likewise, the dominated segments of the population, armed or not, are usually poorly organized and incapable of mounting an effective resistance.

To tie in with the OP, it would seem that the police officers and soldiers, regardless of Castro's wishes, would have been more reluctant to carry out their heinous acts in Cuba if they feared resistance and/or retaliation from an armed population. By first disarming the population however, the ensured that they could go about their business unopposed. In comparison to our own country, I think that if our own government did become tyrannical without first disarming the population, it would have trouble getting the military and police to go along with it's wishes as the soldiers and LEO's would fear that the armed population may fight back.

See, arms alone won't make you free either. Rule of law that the people will support does the job. I teach an ethics course to a group of LEOs from time to time. I tell them that what really keeps them safe on the street is that 99.999% of our population respects the rule of law and so the thin blue line holds. If that respect and support were not there then it would be Dodge City for sure.

Yes, the vast majority of the population respects the rule of law now, but if the government became tyrannical, that segment of the population would surely decline and would have to be kept in line by force. Such force would be much more difficult to execute if the population is armed and able to resist. I contend that the case is not that we are armed because the government is not tyrannical, but rather that the government is not tyrannical in part because we are armed. I feel that the part of the purpose of the Second Amendment (besides protection from foreign invaders) is to foster a healthy fear within the government of an armed population and thereby prevent tyranny.

 

[litng1]

publius
Great little post!!!!

 

[Kleinzeit]

sam1chlt, you confuse me. First you wrote:

My fear is that we are letting it slowly slip away with out a shot being fired!

and I asked whether you meant to say by this that, because of the last election, someone should actually be shooting guns now. (That really is what you seemed to be saying.) Now you write to say,

Kleinzeit you may want to read a book written by Karl Marx that explains the take over with out uprising!

and that really confuses me.

Perhaps I don't know Marx as well as I should. My understanding is that he saw history as a process in which the working people would eventually take up arms in revolution to overthrow their elitist, tyrannical oppressors. And that he thought this was a fine idea.

Now, I'm a bit slow, so humor me here. What I have so far is that you want me to read Marx, and you think we should start shooting... So, I think perhaps you want to start a Communist revolution in America. Is that it?

Because if you are talking revolution of any kind, you might want to take that talk somewhere else.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

While I agree that right to arms alone does not make a population free, it goes a long way towards it.

No it doesn't really make you free just powerful which leads to..

most of the atrocities that we see committed in the third world, we find that it's typically one segment of the population that is well armed dominating or killing another segment that, for whatever reason, has inferior weapons or is totally unarmed.

This is not freedom in action but rather power being exercised over another group. In Rwanda the Tutsi first had the power oppressed the Hutu who later took over and massacred the Tutsi. Arms just provided the means to do it.

it would seem that the police officers and soldiers, regardless of Castro's wishes, would have been more reluctant to carry out their heinous acts in Cuba if they feared resistance and/or retaliation from an armed population.

I think the Bay of Pigs proved that wrong. The people of Cuba in the majority wanted Castro and allowed him to stay in power. Otherwise the CIA plan would have worked and millions of indignent Cubans would have risen up and overthrown Castro. Didn't happen and would Cuba had been any freer after the exiles took over? I don't think you can say that webley. Isay based on the lack of said democratic ideals and foundations you might well have had another fascist dictator in Ccuba.

Rule of law and the democratic dreams and ideals we have today will keep

if the government became tyrannical

from ever being a reality.

I contend that the case is not that we are armed because the government is not tyrannical, but rather that the government is not tyrannical in part because we are armed.

Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical. We have had instances of that. The suspension of Habeus Corpus by Lincoln, the sedition laws of WWI, the Japanese Interment in WWII. Did armed citizens stop those? Please do not cite the rural myth of the Battle of Athens:barf:

We are armed today and can defend ourselves from criminals because we have a democratic government whose checks and balances have kept power diffused so that one man or party could not take over as a tyrant. Even when things got bad during the Cvil War or the Great Depression we maintained our COTUS without the use of armed citizenry.

We don't have a tyrannical government because of those institutions, free press and the rule of law. Not because there is an armed minority.

 

[kirpi97]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman:
When they further argue that we need to have military weapons such as machineguns and grenades in order to be able to fight our own military, I jump off that boat.

I am in agreement with you on this point. I am not a believer in the average citizen owning an assault rifle or any weapon that is customarily associated with the military. But given the climate of our democracy and the pursuits of some that when you give in to one point, they then use that as the new standard from which to erode more points. There is no end. So we draw arbitrary lines in the sand about which we will not budge.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman:
arms alone won't make you free either. Rule of law that the people will support does the job.

Again we are in total agreement. As long as the population respects the law and civility reigns, then you have a democracy. When that fails, anarchy or a sort of nature's feudal system--might makes right exists. Somalia was a perfect example. Weapons everywhere. But the rule of law was established by Warlords.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman:
Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical.

Bit of a loaded question wouldn't you say. If I could point to such an event, we wouldn't know it because the leader never did anything. But if they stop him by use of force, then it is a revolt.

But if we are going for an example of where the perception of the use of power thwarted the moves of a tyrant, we need only look at America. For years policy of Mutual Destruction thwarted the Soviet Union. We never had to employ the force. The threat of it was enough.

And in Turkey, the Constitution gives the Military the power to over take the Government should it try and depart from secularism. The government has tried on occasion and the military stepped in. Restored the government back to the Constitution and then relinquished control back to civilian authorities.

Today, the military is the protector of the Constitution. The mere presence and knowledge that the military will step in keeps the Islamic Party from grasping hold of the government and turning it into another Iran.

I know these are not examples of ordinary citizens thwarting tyranny because they have weapons. But it is as close as I can get. It is like Switzerland. Who has no real standing Army. Just a nation of armed citizens. And they seem to maintain a democracy.

So the military itself doesn't guarantee freedoms. It goes back to the will of the people.

.

 

[Kleinzeit]

But given the climate of our democracy and the pursuits of some that when you give in to one point, they then use that as the new standard from which to erode more points.

The thing that gets me worried at this point is that this description of the state of democracy could be applied equally to both sides of politics. Under the previous administration, many supported what others saw as the erosion of civil liberties. Now the situation and sides are reversed and the complaint is essentially the same. So, when people take up arms against the person they think is a tyrant, they are probably taking up arms against their neighbor, as well. This is why I, too, put my faith in democratic institutions and the rule of law.

 

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
While I agree that right to arms alone does not make a population free, it goes a long way towards it.

No it doesn't really make you free just powerful which leads to..

True enough, arms alone doesn't make one free. However, if the population is armed and therefore powerful, they are more difficult and therefore less likely to be oppressed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
most of the atrocities that we see committed in the third world, we find that it's typically one segment of the population that is well armed dominating or killing another segment that, for whatever reason, has inferior weapons or is totally unarmed.

This is not freedom in action but rather power being exercised over another group. In Rwanda the Tutsi first had the power oppressed the Hutu who later took over and massacred the Tutsi. Arms just provided the means to do it.

That's actually an illustration of my point, the side that was better armed was able to massacre the side that was not. Had both sides been armed equally well, I suspect the outcome may have been quite different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
it would seem that the police officers and soldiers, regardless of Castro's wishes, would have been more reluctant to carry out their heinous acts in Cuba if they feared resistance and/or retaliation from an armed population.

I think the Bay of Pigs proved that wrong. The people of Cuba in the majority wanted Castro and allowed him to stay in power. Otherwise the CIA plan would have worked and millions of indignent Cubans would have risen up and overthrown Castro. Didn't happen and would Cuba had been any freer after the exiles took over? I don't think you can say that webley. Isay based on the lack of said democratic ideals and foundations you might well have had another fascist dictator in Ccuba.

Since they had been disarmed before the invasion, how were the citizens in Cuba supposed to rise up and support the invasion. I don't think a bunch of people with sticks and pitchforks would have done particularly well against the Cuban army and the people probably knew this. Thusly, because the people were afraid (and rightly so) to support the invasion and because the invasion force was small and poorly supported, it failed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
if the government became tyrannical

from ever being a reality.

Lets hope you're right

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
I contend that the case is not that we are armed because the government is not tyrannical, but rather that the government is not tyrannical in part because we are armed.

Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical. We have had instances of that. The suspension of Habeus Corpus by Lincoln, the sedition laws of WWI, the Japanese Interment in WWII. Did armed citizens stop those? Please do not cite the rural myth of the Battle of Athens

Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, WWI's sedition laws, and the Japanese internment camps were all allowed because they were deemed to be emergency measures, had they not been done away with when the percieved need for them was gone, it's difficult to say how the population would have reacted. As far as an instance of an armed population throwing off a tyrannical government, what do you call the American Revolution? An armed population rose up and threw off a tyrannical government. While the outcomes weren't as favorable as the American Revolution, the French Revolution and Bolshevik Revolutions are also examples of an armed population throwing off a tyrannical government (in those cases monarchies). The reasons that the French and Bolshevik revolutions did not have as favorable outcomes as our own is that nothing like the constitution was put in place afterwards to keep the new government from becoming tyrannical. Also, as kirpi97 pointed out, it is rather difficult to point out something that never happened because an armed population prevented it rather than revolted against it. One can see throughout history tyrannical governments first disarming and then opressing their populations. One of the first things that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did was to disarm their populations, it was only after that that the jack-booted thugs began kicking in doors with much frequency.

We are armed today and can defend ourselves from criminals because we have a democratic government whose checks and balances have kept power diffused so that one man or party could not take over as a tyrant. Even when things got bad during the Cvil War or the Great Depression we maintained our COTUS without the use of armed citizenry.

Democratic government can still become tyrannical. The British Parliment was established well before the American Revolution, Hitler became chancellor through a democratic vote, and Mussolini came to power in a similar fashion. Also, during tough times such as the Great Depression, could it be that a majority of the population being armed prevented one segment of it from dominating the other? I agree that the right to arms alone does not guarantee freedom, but I maintain that it is one of the many components that does.

 

[zukiphile]

We don't have a tyrannical government because of those institutions, free press and the rule of law. Not because there is an armed minority.

This assumes that american rule of law itself does not require the general population to be allowed to arm, which is itself a dubious proposition.

More problemmatic, a view that some civil liberties are necessary to the state of american liberty while some others are superfluous is gravely flawed. It pretends a knowledge which is improbable, and as a proposition is categorically impossible.

A fellow might argue that the first amendment is superfluous and americans would still not have tyranny, reduced liberty, without it. It seems unlikely we would consider a government that denied those liberties anything but tyrannical, and each liberty is a strand in the tapestry of general liberty.

it would seem that the police officers and soldiers, regardless of Castro's wishes, would have been more reluctant to carry out their heinous acts in Cuba if they feared resistance and/or retaliation from an armed population.

I think the Bay of Pigs proved that wrong. The people of Cuba in the majority wanted Castro and allowed him to stay in power. Otherwise the CIA plan would have worked and millions of indignent Cubans would have risen up and overthrown Castro. Didn't happen and would Cuba had been any freer after the exiles took over? I don't think you can say that webley. Isay based on the lack of said democratic ideals and foundations you might well have had another fascist dictator in Ccuba.

Well, you've sort of shown your hand here.

I think the Bay of Pigs proved that wrong. The people of Cuba in the majority wanted Castro and allowed him to stay in power.

Whether a dicatorship is popular doesn't bear on whether it commits atrocities or whether the presence of armed resistence would temper its actions. That ascendant communists pre-emptively disarm potentially non-compliant populations indicates their view that an armed population would impede their control.

Otherwise the CIA plan would have worked and millions of indignent Cubans would have risen up and overthrown Castro.

The idea that one poorly planned and executed invasion at one point in history is equivalent to an ongoing plebisite in favour of Castro merits ridicule.

Didn't happen and would Cuba had been any freer after the exiles took over? I don't think you can say that webley. Isay based on the lack of said democratic ideals and foundations you might well have had another fascist dictator in Ccuba.

Batista wasn't a fascist. He was vehemently opposed by the fascists. The only party that labels any and all opponents fascists? That's right. The misconception of communist party government as some sort of intermediate condition between formal constitutional liberty and tyranny is not well founded. Since cubans risking death on leaky boats and innertubes is a trait peculiar to this island prison outpost of a conspicuous tyranny as created and enforced by Castro, it can only serve to slander hose who opposed him by wondering whether they would be as grotesque.

Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical.

You mean aside from the american insurrection? A modern example is provided by the arming of the nicaraguan people to remove communists from their political monopoly and re-introduce constitutional and representative government.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

On the counterpoint - the Iranian overthrow of the Shah and the ultimate overthrow of the Soviet system was done by a sea change in the populace. That sea change was accompanied by a refusal of the armed branches of those governments to use force against the populace.

In China, the armed forces (with troops brought from areas away from Beijing), were willing to use military force.

Since many democracies exist without an armed populace and major insurrections have occured without armed rebellion - one should be careful about generalizations. And of course, we return to the horrible conundrum that many of the most ardent supporters of the 2nd Amend. are quite ok with violating many other civil liberties.

I opine that the BOR are all equally important and simply stating that the 2nd is predominant is not a winning argument. There was no armed insurrection against slavery or the Japanese interrment.

 

[zukiphile]

Glenn, I think fidelity to history is important if we are to make historical assertions

On the counterpoint - the Iranian overthrow of the Shah and the ultimate overthrow of the Soviet system was done by a sea change in the populace.

Neither of these conveys the history of these events. The governing persian class, always a minority, was generally supportive of the Shah's program of modernisation, and was generally opposed to the very traditional and less urban general population. The Shah's failing health and clear signals from the US government that the Shah no longer had our support led to what amounted to his abdication. It was the Shah who never ordered a more vigorous entrenchment, not a refusal of iranian armed forces to follow orders.

Similarly, to suggest that the soviet system was a product of popular support, and that it folded when that support evanesced is ahistorical. While russian nationalism united russians during the german invasion and was generally supportive of soviet expansion, the support of the general population who were subject to a formal policy of rule by terror, is very hard to find.


None of this should indicate that popular support can't affect the course of some governments, or that armed insurrection or its threat is the first, best or only means by which a population can secure a greater degree of liberty. However, that it can and has done that seems difficult to deny.

 

[Webleymkv]

On the counterpoint - the Iranian overthrow of the Shah and the ultimate overthrow of the Soviet system was done by a sea change in the populace. That sea change was accompanied by a refusal of the armed branches of those governments to use force against the populace.

The overthrow of the Soviet system is kind of unique in that it happened at a point in time in which that system was already crumbling under it's own weight. The Soviet economy was unable to sustain the amounts of military spending that the government was taking part in and the old hard-line communists' number were dwindling. While it is true that the armed branches of the government were unwilling to use force against the populace, so to was Gorbachev. Had such changes been tried at a different point in time, under Stalin for example, I suspect that the outcome would have been quite different. Because of the Soviet government's unwillingness to use force against their populace, it could be argued that they were at that point no longer tyrannical but just ineffective. With regards to the overthrow of the Shah, the Iranian military only declared themselves neutral after they were overwhelmed by guerillas and rebel troops so armed insurrection did occur to certain extent and it was only after the Shah lost the support of the military that a relatively peaceful transition was able to occur.

I opine that the BOR are all equally important and simply stating that the 2nd is predominant is not a winning argument. There was no armed insurrection against slavery or the Japanese interrment.

I agree and have never been of the opinion that the Second Amendment is any more important that the rest, however I maintain that it is no less important in preventing tyranny and that is the heart of the debate. I think that the Constitution contains many safeguards against tyranny and the Bill of Rights is composed almost entirely of such safeguards (though there are others not contained in the Bill of Rights such as our system of checks and balances). I contend that while the Second Amendment is partly in place to ensure that the citizensare able to protect themselves from criminals and foreign invaders, it is also one of the many safeguards against tyranny contained in the Constitution. As to slavery and Japanese interrment, an armed insurrection against slavery was attempted by John Brown, but the outcome was similar to the bay of pigs in that the slave population did not join the rebellion. I very highly doubt that this was because they liked being slaves, but rather I suspect that they were unable to(due to the fact that they were unarmed and not organized) or simply afraid to. Japanese interrment was perpetrated against a relatively small proportion of the populace and was, at the time, supported by the majority of the population. The Japanese interrment of WWII was also a relatively short-lived event and was ended by the other safeguards against tyranny.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My point was the major overturns of what were seen as tyrannical governments was accomplished without major armed insurrections. There was no support for a continuation of the Shah's government with his heirs. The armed forces wouldn't have responded to use force against the people or so I read some reports. That he didn't give a futile order begs the question.

Similarly, in the USSR - it was reported that orders to use armed force wouldn't have been successful. The armed forces were not going to try to enforce order against the populace in this case.

 

[Webleymkv]

My point was the major overturns of what were seen as tyrannical governments was accomplished without major armed insurrections. There was no support for a continuation of the Shah's government with his heirs. The armed forces wouldn't have responded to use force against the people or so I read some reports. That he didn't give a futile order begs the question.

Similarly, in the USSR - it was reported that orders to use armed force wouldn't have been successful. The armed forces were not going to try to enforce order against the populace in this case.

Positing about the effectiveness of an order that was never given slides into speculation and doesn't really prove anything. Regardless, it's really beside the point anyway as there are many cases throughout history in which armed insurrecton was necessary to overthrow tyranny. Given that the founders had just gone through such an event, it seems clear to me that prevention of tyranny was part of their intent when they drafted the Second Amendment.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A subtle point and it may start a flame war for which I apologize. My point on slavery was that the general population of slave owner states were, in general, quite OK with slavery. Their ownership of firearms and the 2nd Amend. did not automatically transfer to a respect for liberty for the slaves.

Thus, the contention that the 2nd and firearms ownership almost automatically guarantees a respect for liberty doesn't hold. Private firearms ownership can be a buffer to prevent genocide (suggested by studies that indicate that genocide occurs against the weak). But it doesn't gurantee that a firearms owning majority is necessarily a respector of liberty.

 

[Socrates]

An armed populace provides two things: protection against our government, and, protection against invaders.

Currently, we have border squabbles with Mexico based drug gangs, police, and factions of the armed forces. They are armed with automatic weapons, and, the people on those borders should have the right to respond in kind.

The Swiss government has proven the wisdom of this position. The Swiss haven't been invaded in 800 years, and, made it through two world wars and a bunch of other stuff in the last couple hundred years. Why? Shooting is their national past time.

The joke goes:

There is a story, possibly apocryphal but awesome nonetheless, that a ranking German (possibly the Kaiser) was visiting and watching the Swiss military on their summer maneuvers. He asked the Swiss commander, "How big a force do you command?"

The Swiss general confidently replied, "I can mobilize one million men in twenty-four hours."

The German asked, "What would happen if I marched five million men in here tomorrow?"

The Swiss replied, "Each of my men will fire five shots and go home."

Note that Switzerland was not invaded during either World War, and still used an updated version of the same bolt action rifle from 1889 to 1959, and kept it in reserve service until 1980.
Imagine a government that not only allows but INSISTS its citizens keep military grade weapons. That's points right there. Even more, they hold quarterly Schuetzenfests, at which shooting, carousing and drinking are expected. And it's entirely possible you will have your ass handed to you by a 13 year old girl shooting a select-fire StG90 assault rifle that she carried to the range from school, slung across her back while pedaling her bicycle. Swiss GIRLS are better men than most allegedly-male American liberals.
The K31 packs a kick. It fires a 7.5 mm Swiss round that is expensive, because it only comes from Switzerland and it's only available in match grade. There is no non-match grade Swiss Ammo. Swiss soldiers don't miss. This is why they've never had to demonstrate the fact. Invaders fear a mountain range full of snipers. .

For this to work, as the need arises, the populace should be armed with the current state of the art weapons, just as the Swiss have upgraded.

So you have two driving points:
Primarily the intent is to protect the country from invaders. Terrorists, drug gangs, etc.
Police aren't armed for this sort of situation, and, what are the folks in Arizona going to do? Wait for an underarmed police force to come out and get shot, while they are facing drug gangs with AK 47's? Apparently it's not politically correct, nor is it Constitutionally correct to have the National Guard armed, and sitting on the border, but, that maybe what it takes, if we ever really get serious about stopping illegal immigration, and protect the people that own property on our borders.

 

[Webleymkv]

A subtle point and it may start a flame war for which I apologize. My point on slavery was that the general population of slave owner states were, in general, quite OK with slavery. Their ownership of firearms and the 2nd Amend. did not automatically transfer to a respect for liberty for the slaves.

Thus, the contention that the 2nd and firearms ownership almost automatically guarantees a respect for liberty doesn't hold. Private firearms ownership can be a buffer to prevent genocide (suggested by studies that indicate that genocide occurs against the weak). But it doesn't gurantee that a firearms owning majority is necessarily a respector of liberty.

I don't think that anyone has suggested that firearms ownership guarantees a respect for liberty. What I've been trying to say is that a government is less likely to become opressive if it knows that the population it wishes to opress is armed. The issue of slavery and John Brown's insurrection in particular is an example of this: the slave owners had little concern for the liberty of slaves in part because the slaves were unarmed. Many states, in fact, went to great lengths to ensure that slaves remained unarmed out of fear of a slave rebellion.

 

[zukiphile]

We should be able to discuss this without a "flame war".

Their ownership of firearms and the 2nd Amend. did not automatically transfer to a respect for liberty for the slaves.

Thus, the contention that the 2nd and firearms ownership almost automatically guarantees a respect for liberty doesn't hold.

That seems uncontroversial, but who contends that firearms ownership automatically guarantees a respect for liberty generally? Would any individual right automatically guarantee such a respect?

I think we can fairly generalise that a government that has real regard for its citizens' liberty will also provide to citizens the means by which to exercise and protect that liberty. The means by which we institutionalise that regard for liberty involves legal protection of rights to vote, speak, worship, assemble, bear arms, freedom from warrantless search, own property, have access to courts, etc.

When one of those rights is diminished, it may not be the only one diminished. By way of example, I was and still am a vehement opponent of McCain-Feingold election financing "reform" for its limitations on the means by which people speak and are heard. Like a character in a Twilight Zone episode, McCain got what he wanted then was bitten by it.

We have a phalanx of rights; carelessness or indifference about one area of rights is unlikely to be good for the rest.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Oh, I agree - my cynical mind sometimes freezes on cliched rhetoric and some of the RKBA argument does that. Not to be a contrarian. Some of the rhetoric does seem to imply what I said. I note that we here are more nuanced.

About the Swiss - see that's my point. It is nice to argue that the Swiss military system precluded a German invasion. That was part of it. The Swiss had resistance plans. One major part was the destruction of tunnels leading to Italy. Their destruction would have greatly hampered German military plans. They also mined roads and plants that would have been to the advantage of the Germans to seize.

Next, the Swiss - in a horrible situation - did cooperate with the Germans to a very large extent.

Thus, invading Switzerland was contemplated but not needed according to most German analyses. No one doubted that the Wermacht could have taken Switzerland at some cost. The same analysis was made of the invasion of Sweden. Cooperation was high and the cost wasn't worth it.

Portraying the Swiss system as the sole protector of their country is easily refuted and if one makes this argument for the RKBA, you'd better understand the nuances.

If we also talk about persuasion, the chances of a foreign invasion in the classic sense of the USA is nil. One might argue that criminal activity is an 'invasion' but since most folks think of those issues as a need for increased law enforcement as compared to civilians in Hummers with M2s - that's not going to be a convincing argument.

If this discussion is to provide a rationale for the RKBA with examples, one really needs to think of ones that have some realistic bite. I think of the principles of persuasion and again mention that a silly argument later negates even strong ones.

The strong practical arguments as I see them (as compared to some theoretic statement) are:

1. Personal protection against crime
2. Personal and neighborhood protection against major social disruption like Katrina - but you need to stay away from racist rants (which we have seen here before).
3. Protection against racism and related terrorism (like the Deacons for Defense story).
4. Protection against an elected tyranny - but if that argument is only from the right - let's have guns to overthrow the government to put in a regressive right wing government and save our guns(the usual RKBA revolution call) - that isn't going to fly.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Sorry, I had to go to work and missed a lot of this. Good comments Glenn.

Had both sides been armed equally well, I suspect the outcome may have been quite different.

I don't think it was a question of arms but numbers that ruled the day and most of the genocide was done with machetes and axes not guns. I don't think your point holds using the balance of terror analogy. Again, liberty and freedom were not restored in Rwanda just revenge taken and leadership changed.

how were the citizens in Cuba supposed to rise up and support the invasion.

Actually, the CIA had done a pretty good job of smuggling in weapons and had given instructions for the rest of the Cuban populace to sabotage Fidel's Army. They didn't do it because they didn't support the uprising. Again, having arms and even a supporting Army of exiles did not return freedom to Cuba. There was little or no history of democracy in Cuba, just repression and corruption and today it remains. An armed citizenry would not change that, just change who was calling the shots.

As far as an instance of an armed population throwing off a tyrannical government, what do you call the American Revolution?

I should have said after the Revolutionary War. Caught me there but still no good. Why? Because we in America had no part of that system in 1776. No representation, no free press, no right to trial by jury, no free speech. Revolution in that case, and in some other similar ones in history, was the only option because there were no other means of redress.

Also, as kirpi97 pointed out, it is rather difficult to point out something that never happened because an armed population prevented it

Sure there is. Each of the historical examples I gave you were tryannical and counter to the COTUS. In fact the USA paid reparations to the Japanese that we wrongfully imprisoned in WWII.

In each and every case the armed citizenry did nothing and it was our democratic institutions that undid the wrongs. Either the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches righted the wrongs. In every case and never were armed citizens either a deterrent to government overstepping their bounds or a remedy to an ongoing infraction. It hasn't happened and won't because our democratic institutions will do it lawfully and peacefully. Even as recently as Katrina when Mayor Nagin unlawfully confiscated firearms from NO law-abiding residents did the "armed citizens" stop it or right it. The courts did by injunction.

An armed populace provides two things: protection against our government, and, protection against invaders.

I contend it does neither and hasn't in over 100 years. A professional military and police force has done it. An armed populace today protects individuals from crime and lawlessness and the 2A guarantees us that right. No right granted to overthrow the government in the 2A.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

a government is less likely to become opressive if it knows that the population it wishes to opress is armed.

A government is less likely to oppress it's citizen's when it's power is checked by law and institutions that won't allow one person or a small group to take over. Our founders insured that with the Separations of Powers and not with the 2d Amendment.

Next, the Swiss - in a horrible situation - did cooperate with the Germans to a very large extent.

Thus, invading Switzerland was contemplated but not needed according to most German analyses. No one doubted that the Wermacht could have taken Switzerland at some cost. The same analysis was made of the invasion of Sweden. Cooperation was high and the cost wasn't worth it.

Portraying the Swiss system as the sole protector of their country is easily refuted and if one makes this argument for the RKBA, you'd better understand the nuances.

Glenn, thanks for debunking that old canard. I think Swiss banks deterred the Nazi's more than their small army

Currently, we have border squabbles with Mexico based drug gangs, police, and factions of the armed forces. They are armed with automatic weapons, and, the people on those borders should have the right to respond in kind.

Socrates our military and police can deal with that. I am afraid that what you suggest may look like this: