Defense against tyranny and the RKBA

[Aguila Blanca]

What if the tyrant is the system?

What if it already is?

Now that is an interesting philosophical debate. The argument that the system is the tyrant has merits... well, to a degree.

By "the system" I wasn't referring to the fundamental system spelled out in our Constitution, I was thinking of the vast, unelected bureaucracy that actually runs our government while the Congress pontificates and the President bloviates. Those nameless, faceless bureaucrats are the real system, and they are mostly unaccountable. Nobody knows who they are or where they are, and they're protected by civil service rules that make it difficult to impossible to fire them for most issues.

Quick -- what's the name of the BATFE agent who decided that a shoelace was a machine gun?

See what I mean?

 

[Buzzcook]

Just to repeat what I've said in previous threads. The largest revolution of the 18th century was when the completely unarmed French peasants over threw their king
The largest revolutionary period in history was the over through of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact by unarmed populace.

Our own revolution was only possible because we got arms and supplies from France and Holland and other European countries.
Our revolution started when British troops attempted to seize militia arms and ammo when they marched on Concord and Lexington.
Remember the colonies had an organized militia controlled by colonial governments that in turn became revolutionary state governments.

In theory an internal revolution (without foreign support) is successful when a high enough percentage of the population supports the revolution and/or opposes the old regime. Iran will stand or fall on how the numbers work out.

 

[briandg]

Don't consider only a problem at one level, either. Anyone who has been observant lately knows that it doesn't matter the level. A county clerk can wind up in trouble for dereliction of legally binding duty, as can someone who refuses to issue a legitimately filed carry permit. The governor himself can order his entire staff to circumvent laws. We can have executive orders that perform similarly.

Unless catastrophic events occur, don't you expect that officials will toe the line, rather than risk punishment? Businesses toe the line, do you see illegal drinking or tobacco sales frequently? Not in areas that are generally law abiding.

Many bureaucrats are paper handling drones who do their duty, and seriously, a lot of them are fraidy cats who will violate all manner of ethical or even legal standards as long as they have papers and rules to support their action. People in conflict with legal concerns have too much to lose. That sheriff's deputy will serve a subpoena to a neighbor.

 

[briandg]

Iran and the clerics against the Shah was interesting, but I don't see it as having very many comparable situations, but I think that maybe France is rather similar.

Enormous masses using broomhandles to sweep away the widely hated leaders. Each time I believe that military resistance fell off pretty quickly.

There is always that line, just how far will a soldier be pressed to fight his own people to uphold a government that like Louis or the Shah?

Only has a glancing connection with our solidly built order.

 

[zukiphile]

Our own revolution was only possible because we got arms and supplies from France and Holland and other European countries.
Our revolution started when British troops attempted to seize militia arms and ammo when they marched on Concord and Lexington.
Remember the colonies had an organized militia controlled by colonial governments that in turn became revolutionary state governments.

Not to diminish the role of armed action in resolving that, but let's note that the American "revolution" wasn't a social revolution. The existing order wasn't overturned.

A central issue was whether the rights of englishmen were being abused by the crown, and people in the american colonies had allies in Parliament. Edmund Burke spoke and wrote against the abuses rights held by the english in the american colonies.

There was never much of a dispute that the population should be governed by those with lots at stake, property owners and people who made commerce work. The issue at the time was whether that arrangement was going to extend to the english after they left England.

The french revolution wasn't going to afflict europe for another dozen years. The same Edmund Burke who wrote in support of americans also wrote in condemnation of the French revolution in terms that would later apply to the bolsheviks.

 

[jimbob86]

There was never much of a dispute that the population should be governed by those with lots at stake, property owners and people who made commerce work.

There's a hole in your argument big enough to sink a ship of the line: If such were actually the case, suffrage would have been limited to those people. It was not.

 

[zukiphile]

There's a hole in your argument big enough to sink a ship of the line: If such were actually the case, suffrage would have been limited to those people. It was not.

Prior to the jacksonian revolution here and the manchester revolution in England, real or personal property requirements were common.

The idea of that sort of limitation on the levers of government was accepted as the reasonable and civilised method for achieving representative government, and was reflected in greek and roman practice.

 

[jimbob86]

Prior to the jacksonian revolution here and the manchester revolution in England, real or personal property requirements were common.

The idea of that sort of limitation on the levers of government was accepted as the reasonable and civilised method for achieving representative government, and was reflected in greek and roman practice.

While common, property requirements were on their way out in 1790 .... The Jacksonian Revolution of 1828 was not a short term event- It started on the frontier in Kentucky in the 1790's (maybe before) ..... history books love to list dates on timelines and make things neat and concise ..... real history happens in ebbs and flows ... generations .... but by 1812, the masses ......"mattered" .....

 

[zukiphile]

While common, property requirements were on their way out in 1790 .... The Jacksonian Revolution of 1828 was not a short term event- It started on the frontier in Kentucky in the 1790's (maybe before) ..... history books love to list dates on timelines and make things neat and concise ..... real history happens in ebbs and flows ... generations .... but by 1812, the masses ......"mattered" .....

While I am not an advocate of a date centered, antiquarian approach to history, the order of events does matter here when drawing conclusions about the character of events and the ideas dominant at specific times.

At the time of the american revolution, there were certainly people like Thomas Paine who argued for universal values and the demolition of traditions that offended his sense of equality, but that's the sort of thing that would lead many of his contemporaries to see his highest and best use as ballast at the end of a rope.

With few exceptions, american founding fathers sought a preservation of the order their societies reflected, and the demand for the recognition of their rights as englishmen drew on a tradition of such rights in England, not a monstrosity of an a priori doctrine of universal human rights demanding the destruction of those traditions. The idea that everyone who can fog a mirror should have an equal vote may have been important in Kentucky in 1790, but that's 14 years after the "revolution" in the colonies began and not in the original colonies.

The states had an array of different rules and changes weren't always for the purpose of expanding suffrage. If I recall correctly, in the post revolutionary but pre-constitutional period, NY or Virginia (I forget which) revoked the suffrage of jews and RCs. Another let one vote if he paid taxes, while another let anyone vote, except for RCs and jews who could still vote if they paid taxes. (I am happy to be corrected on any of those details, but that represents the sort of back and forth during the period).

These are all arguments about what sort of person should be permitted to vote rather than a radical insistence that suffrage must be universal.

That background explains why americans had supporters in Parliament, and Thomas Paine left for France.

 

[turkeestalker]

Just read this thread through for the first time this evening, so my response may be a little behind it's current tone and or direction. Oh well.

I'm 54 years old, and I know that "defeatism" was drilled into me in public school in a backhanded way while growing up.
Maybe I'm as stubborn as I've been accused of being, but it didn't really take.
Maybe I should just thank my Father for that.

My youngest graduates high school this year, his brother did four years ago.
"Defeatism" has been drilled into them in a much more forehanded way in public school, among other things.

I'm proud of the fact that they both understand and believe in their hearts that the second amendment to our Constitution is not only our right, but our responsibility...our duty.
A duty that is not qualified by our likelihood of success or lack there of.

I believe that there are a whole lot of my own countrymen that I would not trust to stand beside them should they ever be forced to fulfill that duty.
Sad... maybe a little melodramatic... but really really sad.

 

[LogicMan]

The people can never match the government's military forces in levels of training and weaponry, but where they do match the government is in their sheer numbers, which the government cannot match. The people being armed serves as a counterweight to the government's otherwise having a monopoly on force. It changes the calculus of the situation.

Those who sneer at the idea of resistance to tyranny in modern times generally haven't thought it through much IMO.

 

[Aspirant]

The people can never match the government's military forces in levels of training and weaponry, but where they do match the government is in their sheer numbers, which the government cannot match. The people being armed serves as a counterweight to the government's otherwise having a monopoly on force. It changes the calculus of the situation.

Those who sneer at the idea of resistance to tyranny in modern times generally haven't thought it through much IMO.

Hopefully there's something to add even if I do come from Singapore, a country without firearms freedom. What we do have is conscription.

That means that at any given time, nearly half our population of 5-6 million knows one end of a rifle from the other, even if we've no means of using it outside of when the military decides we should. (How well each person is trained, though, is another matter.) We're also a key US ally and the most technologically advanced, well funded military in our part of the world.

In other words, conscripts like myself vary in ability, but there's a solid core of career soldiers, airmen and sailors as well.

Now obviously, in a war the numbers aren't on our side -- our neighbours can muster forces that vastly outnumber ours, should they go nuts and decide to try. What our military does is make the cost of an invasion so high that it will not be worth mounting in the first place. The word we use is deterrence; we aim to prevent an armed conflict, though if that fails we can push back pretty hard.

In a sense, that's what I feel the 2A does on one hand -- any government that tries anything close to genocide, or even using the military to enforce its demands, is going to find it (excuse the understatement) extremely difficult. The cost of doing so makes such tyrannical action not worth pursuing in the first place.

It's not going to be worth the effort needed, and as has already been said, large portions of the American military already support the right to keep and bear arms.

To add some more relevance -- it's both the skill level of individuals and groups that matters in this case, AND the fact everyone will have self-interest at heart, even potential tyrants who know an armed population is a deterrent force in itself. The 2A decentralises US arms so that the result makes tyranny and the bloodshed we see around the world much more unlikely.

There's another discussion on public safety, but that's for another forum. Keep your freedoms well, those of you who still have it.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Don P]

You can't predict what our police and military will do in the face of anarchy and breakdown, but I do predict that an armed uprising against the government that they swore to protect won't win

I agree with us/we not knowing what the military response would be, and disagree with the second part of the statement. Just look at what our founders accomplished when the British attempted to shut down the resistance to the Crowns policies. A band of radicals together defeated what at the time was known as the most powerful military the world.

 

[carguychris]

The people can never match the government's military forces in levels of training and weaponry, but where they do match the government is in their sheer numbers, which the government cannot match. The people being armed serves as a counterweight to the government's otherwise having a monopoly on force. It changes the calculus of the situation.

Additionally, I'd argue that the common "you can't possibly win against tanks and bombers" argument is premised on the very stereotypically American viewpoint that wars are won by vanquishing the foe in open pitched battle.

It is clear from history that this is not always the case. The ability to utterly pulverize the enemy with technically superior firepower and equipment didn't win it for the Soviets in Finland in 1940 and in Afghanistan in the 1980s, nor for the Nazis fighting Yugoslav and French partisans in WWII, nor for France and the USA in Vietnam. Each of those conflicts has a common element: ever-present and indefatigable armed paramilitaries operating in the shadows behind the front lines, supported by the populace.

 

[zukiphile]

In a sense, that's what I feel the 2A does on one hand -- any government that tries anything close to genocide, or even using the military to enforce its demands, is going to find it (excuse the understatement) extremely difficult. The cost of doing so makes such tyrannical action not worth pursuing in the first place.

Welcome to TFL.

I believe you've stated the role of the 2d Am. well. If things go so poorly that people are shooting at soldiers inside the country, the damage is already done.

The other way your sentiment has been stated is that we shouldn't trust a government that wouldn't trust us with arms. It isn't that anyone is looking forward to an insurrection, but the state shouldn't be pushing a population so hard that they are worrying about an insurrection.

At a practical level, Pakistan achieves something similar with its ungoverned tribal areas. If Islamabad were to move against the tribes to disarm and govern them, they would get a war in return, so they don't.

 

[TXAZ]

Zuke noted:

I believe you've stated the role of the 2d Am. well. If things go so poorly that people are shooting at soldiers inside the country, the damage is already done.

The other way your sentiment has been stated is that we shouldn't trust a government that wouldn't trust us with arms. It isn't that anyone is looking forward to an insurrection, but the state shouldn't be pushing a population so hard that they are worrying about an insurrection.

Shooting at / attacking a well trained force is historically a losing proposition. Removing the civil command and control (executive and legislative branches) then taking political control to redirect the trained force has been shown numerous times to be historically successful approach.
I don't see insurrection in the US, yes we have some 'spirited diatribes' and some nut cases, but I also believe most politicians believe that stepping way out of line trying to restrict rights could be hazardous.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just to cut to the chase:

Would some folks like to state clearly that, for them, defense against tyranny is not a purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

Don't babble about fighting M-1 tanks or B-2s and/or why you would be useless personally. If you think the 2nd is just for you to shoot a B-27s at 3 yards at the range or Bambi, say so.

Support or don't support the theoretical view.

 

[zukiphile]

Would some folks like to state clearly that, for them, defense against tyranny is not a purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

Don't babble about fighting M-1 tanks or B-2s and/or why you would be useless personally. If you think the 2nd is just for you to shoot a B-27s at 3 yards at the range or Bambi, say so.

Glenn, are you using the bolded term as a reference strictly to insurrectionist theory? Or are you asking whether anyone thinks the right is for self-defense and hunting only?

Just trying to clarify.

 

[44 AMP]

"you can't possibly win against tanks and bombers"

Not if you are fool enough to fight them head on, you won't.

Remember that famous picture of the guy facing down the tank in that square in China? That fellow, while brave, didn't stop that tank. The tank driver did.

The tanks, bombers, and everything else that we "can't possibly win against" are crewed by men (and some women). The support for those tanks and bombers are done by men and women. They are our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.

Some will blindly obey tyrannical orders, but some will NOT.

This isn't the same thing as operating in some 3rd world pesthole where the entire populace doesn't speak our language, doesn't share our common values, and pretty much hates us.

Even the Waffen SS (who took an oath of personal loyalty to Adolf Hitler) was not monolithically obedient to all Hitler's orders. Our sons and daughters in the military are a long way from that, and I believe many of them would work to thwart the orders of a tyrant, once the situation becomes clear to them.

There are a million and one things they could do to hamper or even foil operations while appearing to comply and follow orders. The Bomber that doesn't take off because of a mechanical fault, the tank which stops because some private in the motor pool didn't tighten certain bolts, these don't blow up/run over Grandma's house. They are as effectively removed from the dictator's hands as they would be if they were destroyed on the field of battle.
(just a couple of examples)

If it comes to a fight, tis not going to be unthinking, uncaring robots with perfectly working equipment gunning down a bunch of rednecks lined up with their "squirrel guns". It will be MUCH, much more complicated and complex than that.

And. remember, our side does not have to defeat theirs, IN BATTLE, in order to win. Anyone who thinks that individual arms will have no utility in that kind of fight is simply, delusional.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

OK, good question.

I was just posing that folks may have many reasons for supporting the 2nd Amend. After all, some folks want to eliminate it.

Of all the possible reasons, I wanted know if someone thinks that defense against tyranny is not a reason for us to have the 2nd.

I really don't like the term 'insurrectionist theory'. It is too neutral as to reason for the insurrection. Maybe you want to lead a rebellion to make the turkey the national bird? To be silly.

So I prefer defense against tyranny. I know that some assume IT is based on preventing tyranny but I don't like it.