European view.
- Thread starter manta49
- Start date
- Status
The South at the end of the American Civil War. Most were allowed to keep their arms after Appomattox.
But its really semantics. Some would argue that tyranny is ascendant in the US right now, with an armed populace.
I first became aware of the "it's impossible to tyrannize........" platitude in a book by Jeff Cooper. I thought it sounded good then. The more i think about it the less I believe it. It's the kind of thing you feed the troops.
Im on my iPhone so Im gonna stop with one last thing. I'm not disparaging Indians. Everyone surrenders eventually. We should take what lessons we can from them.
But its really semantics. Some would argue that tyranny is ascendant in the US right now, with an armed populace.
I first became aware of the "it's impossible to tyrannize........" platitude in a book by Jeff Cooper. I thought it sounded good then. The more i think about it the less I believe it. It's the kind of thing you feed the troops.
Im on my iPhone so Im gonna stop with one last thing. I'm not disparaging Indians. Everyone surrenders eventually. We should take what lessons we can from them.
MedicineBow
New member
I'm confused too.
World history is virtually nothing but the grab of territory and its population by others.
And everybody for millenia was armed, but obviously what would happen is that a larger, better armed and/or more fierce group would move in. There would be battles and uprisings for years/decades, but eventually the stronger group has its people move in, intermingle and...eventually...a whole new territory has been absorbed. (And that, in every instance, is what happened to the American Indian.)
Now, for a few centuries, as borders have slowly solidified, and the nation-state has replaced more amorphous empires, all of this has been handed over to (loosely-stated) armies. Now the taking and assimilation of territory is harder to do, still not because populations are armed, but because other armies and nations take an interest in the situation, and gains and losses are most often temporary.
Finally, related to the last point, the last complicating factor now is the rise of international alliances and structures. Nation-states have to a large degree decided the old model of taking territory is no longer worth it (again, not because populations are armed).
A minor example of how this all works now is our latest foray into Afghanistan. That population was heavily armed. But we are more heavily armed, vastly (among other things). But the reason we don't subjugate the population and take the territory is not because we can't. We just choose not to. We could could, if we wished, get all Roman on their butts, and that would be that, after a couple decades. But, we don't, because:
We don't want the territory (there's no crying need for land for our people to move into) and there are, for lack of a better term, international/alliance restraints we have decided are more valuable to obey in the long term, which would be shattered if we spend a long time "cleaning up" Afghanistan. (There are of course underlying all of this very basic economic calculations.)
World history is virtually nothing but the grab of territory and its population by others.
And everybody for millenia was armed, but obviously what would happen is that a larger, better armed and/or more fierce group would move in. There would be battles and uprisings for years/decades, but eventually the stronger group has its people move in, intermingle and...eventually...a whole new territory has been absorbed. (And that, in every instance, is what happened to the American Indian.)
Now, for a few centuries, as borders have slowly solidified, and the nation-state has replaced more amorphous empires, all of this has been handed over to (loosely-stated) armies. Now the taking and assimilation of territory is harder to do, still not because populations are armed, but because other armies and nations take an interest in the situation, and gains and losses are most often temporary.
Finally, related to the last point, the last complicating factor now is the rise of international alliances and structures. Nation-states have to a large degree decided the old model of taking territory is no longer worth it (again, not because populations are armed).
A minor example of how this all works now is our latest foray into Afghanistan. That population was heavily armed. But we are more heavily armed, vastly (among other things). But the reason we don't subjugate the population and take the territory is not because we can't. We just choose not to. We could could, if we wished, get all Roman on their butts, and that would be that, after a couple decades. But, we don't, because:
We don't want the territory (there's no crying need for land for our people to move into) and there are, for lack of a better term, international/alliance restraints we have decided are more valuable to obey in the long term, which would be shattered if we spend a long time "cleaning up" Afghanistan. (There are of course underlying all of this very basic economic calculations.)
The South at the end of the Civil War is interesting, but a poor example. The Confederate government was effectively disarmed and defeated, not the populace. The people for the most part did in fact retain arms. They also were US citizens. There was a period of reconstruction which we could argue until the cows come home. While the Union did defeat a rebel army and government it can not be argued that in the end, those who surrendered did not make the choice to do so. It does not prove the point, which I fear is not being comprehended.
Are you stating the South was subjugated or enslaved? Are you stating that this happened without the prior or concurrent disarmament by the victors? The Union was fighting an established, uniformed, and formal army. The goal was not the defeat of a civilian populace.
Again, as I stated in post #57, my point was never that a superior force could not wear down and defeat another force.
Are you stating the South was subjugated or enslaved? Are you stating that this happened without the prior or concurrent disarmament by the victors? The Union was fighting an established, uniformed, and formal army. The goal was not the defeat of a civilian populace.
Again, as I stated in post #57, my point was never that a superior force could not wear down and defeat another force.
Last edited:
I know this is somewhat OT, but I don't know if I agree with this statement. Reconstruction and the emergence of carpet baggers certainly held back the re-emergence of the civilian population. Whether the goal was to defeat them or not, they were held down for years after the end of the war, to the point where there is still resentment from some.
The people of the defeated South were forced to give up a way of life and institutions they had previously fought to defend. The government they chose was replaced by another. The rights to property of value that had previously belonged to them under law were revoked by a government they had no voice in.
Is that not tyranny?
Had tha war gone another way and the North been conquered and the Confederate government imposed its will on the defeated would that qualify?
Is that not tyranny?
Had tha war gone another way and the North been conquered and the Confederate government imposed its will on the defeated would that qualify?
For me the issue on the example by jhenry is "without prior or concurrent disarmement by force or decree"
It's an issue for me because a peace treaty is a decree imposed by the victors and accepted by the vanquished, in which the vanquished agrees to cease hostilities in exchange for concessions.
In the example of the US Civil War, the Confederacy hardly gave up willingly. I see no useful differentiation in that example by separating the government of the confederacy from the people in the confederacy; neither side in the US Civil War was completely polarized on each issue in the war so in my view it's a needless demarcation. In every government there are dissenters or people who disagree with their government's views and actions
It's an issue for me because a peace treaty is a decree imposed by the victors and accepted by the vanquished, in which the vanquished agrees to cease hostilities in exchange for concessions.
In the example of the US Civil War, the Confederacy hardly gave up willingly. I see no useful differentiation in that example by separating the government of the confederacy from the people in the confederacy; neither side in the US Civil War was completely polarized on each issue in the war so in my view it's a needless demarcation. In every government there are dissenters or people who disagree with their government's views and actions
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I submit that it is a grievous error to focus only on gun crime. The real issue is violent crime, and there is reason to believe that in fact the rate of violent crime in the UK is actually higher than that in the US. See this article.manta49 said:
Granted, it's a few years old, but is there any solid basis upon which to conclude that the situation has changed appreciably? The article is also consistent with the Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the University of Leiden and the study Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 conducted by the US Bureaus of Justice Statistics.
In the meantime, the crime rate in the US continues to decline. See this thread for a discussion.
So the focus on gun crime is both disingenuous and a red herring.
For an excellent study of the rise in violent crime, and the erosion of gun and self defense rights in Great Britain see, Guns and Violence, the English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm (Harvard University Press, 2002). It's well worth reading. And here's an interesting article co-authored by well known and respected Second Amendment scholar, David Kopple, on that subject.
I think some of this disagreement comes from not agreeing on a definition of tyranny. I'm not naive enough to think it is possible for all to agree on one.
But keep this in mind: if you are going to define tyranny so narrowly that the statement "it is impossible to tyrannize an armed populace...." becomes true why not just go whole hog and define it so narrowly that it becomes impossible to tyrannize anyone in the first place.
It's out there. Good arguments all round. Hopefully our Euro friends can see that we're not all gun totin' neanderthals cowering in our huts.
But keep this in mind: if you are going to define tyranny so narrowly that the statement "it is impossible to tyrannize an armed populace...." becomes true why not just go whole hog and define it so narrowly that it becomes impossible to tyrannize anyone in the first place.
It's out there. Good arguments all round. Hopefully our Euro friends can see that we're not all gun totin' neanderthals cowering in our huts.
Reconstruction is such a multi layered and complex topic that graduate studies are still completed on discrete portions. I tend to agree with you on certain points regarding this period but it is a morass we will never get out of if we veer into it.
The people remained US citizens as they had been prior to rebellion. Others of the south became US citizens as they had not been prior to the rebellion. I do not think these particular property rights or way of life was worth defending. Other than that, perhaps we should have held out. To call forcing a rebellious portion of the Union to not enslave other humans "tyrany" does not meet my smell test. I say this as a southern person with no qualms. I have no guilt about it, and I do not owe anyone anything. It was simply not a proper way to conduct the business of humanity.
Perhaps we are too of topic. The Mods will have to make that call. I have said what I feel to be so, and attempted to explain as best I can. It was stimulating and enjoyable, but I will now leave the thread. I have some Tannerite that just arrived and after cutting some more brush I intend to set it off with my 1917 SMLE MKIII* and some Radway Green 1950 ammo that was sent to Greece for their particular struggle against evil. Yee Haw and God Bless the USA, particularly the South, but you true Yankees as well. I guess.
The people remained US citizens as they had been prior to rebellion. Others of the south became US citizens as they had not been prior to the rebellion. I do not think these particular property rights or way of life was worth defending. Other than that, perhaps we should have held out. To call forcing a rebellious portion of the Union to not enslave other humans "tyrany" does not meet my smell test. I say this as a southern person with no qualms. I have no guilt about it, and I do not owe anyone anything. It was simply not a proper way to conduct the business of humanity.
Perhaps we are too of topic. The Mods will have to make that call. I have said what I feel to be so, and attempted to explain as best I can. It was stimulating and enjoyable, but I will now leave the thread. I have some Tannerite that just arrived and after cutting some more brush I intend to set it off with my 1917 SMLE MKIII* and some Radway Green 1950 ammo that was sent to Greece for their particular struggle against evil. Yee Haw and God Bless the USA, particularly the South, but you true Yankees as well. I guess.
This is why I tried so hard to stay away from making value judgements in my arguments. I can conceive of instances where I would choose to "Tyrannize" others, were I king of the world. Just because I would willingly choose to do it doesn't make it not tyranny. Just because we think what the Union did was right doesn't make it not tyrannical.
It's a small point, but one worth making I think.
Agreed! and now I'm done with it too. Thank you.
Hurryin' Hoosier
New member
I find it ironic that both Eire and Ulster now have such repressive gun laws, when a sizable percentage (possibly a majority) of Washington's army was made up of Scots-Irish. I guess all the "rabble" had moved over here. (And I, for one, am glad they did!)
OK, I am back but super briefly. The Tannerite went well 
I used my Finn M39 instead of the SMLE. It made a lot of dogs bark. My boys giggled for quite awhile also. Utterly off topic, but I had mentioned it and thought I would report back. I now quit the thread really and truly.
I used my Finn M39 instead of the SMLE. It made a lot of dogs bark. My boys giggled for quite awhile also. Utterly off topic, but I had mentioned it and thought I would report back. I now quit the thread really and truly.Hurryin' Hoosier
New member
"Manta, before you point an accusing finger at the U.S. regarding possession of "illegal" firearms, I think you should take a look at your I.R.A."
Seeing as how he listed his address as "Northern Island, UK", I doubt that he's a supporter of the IRA or Sinn Feine.
Seeing as how he listed his address as "Northern Island, UK", I doubt that he's a supporter of the IRA or Sinn Feine.
Using firearm restrictions to predict the violent crime rate of a country is a very poor method that will often give false conclusions. One needs not compare countries on opposite ends of the globe to understand this, all that is necessary is to compare violent crime in the U.S. to that of our neighbors. Canada has much more restrictive gun laws than the U.S. as a whole and also has a much lower intentional homicide rate (1.62 per 100,000 as of 2010 vs. 4.8 per 100,000 for the U.S.), but Mexico also has much more restrictive gun laws yet has a significantly higher intentional homicide rate (18 per 100,000 as of 2010).
Also, you have to remember that the United States has a relatively large population and is a large country geographically. Unlike many other countries, gun laws in the U.S. vary greatly from state to state and even city to city. Likewise, violent crime rates are significantly higher in some regions than others and this phenomenon can skew the statistics for the country as a whole. What has been learned within the U.S. is that more restrictive gun laws don't seem to be able to reduce violent crime in any meaningful way. By and large areas with relatively lax firearms laws have violent crime rates equal to or lower than areas with restrictive firearms laws.
The reason that most of us here choose to own and carry firearms, however, has relatively little to do with violent crime rates and statistics. Instead, most of us have come to the realization that the only people who can be depended upon to ensure safety from violent attack for ourselves and our loved ones is us. Police are not omnipotent or omnipresent and they simply cannot ensure the safety of everyone at all times.
I, thankfully, have never been involved in a situation in which it was necessary for me to use a firearm or any other type of deadly force to defend my life or those of my loved ones. I live in a relatively safe area and I do not engage in behavior that puts me at greater risk for violent assault. Despite this, however, I have a few times in my relatively short life found myself in situations in which I thought that my life might soon be in jeopardy because of the actions of others. Coming to the realization that someone may very well wish you harm and that should he decide to act on that desire you will be completely at his mercy is a sickening feeling and one that I do not wish to ever experience again. It is for this reason that I choose to own firearms and, whenever legally possible, carry them with me wherever I go. Regardless of how low-risk one's lifestyle or how safe an area he or she frequents, bad things sometimes happen to good people and I for one have absolutely no intention of relying upon the mercy of evil people.
Also, you have to remember that the United States has a relatively large population and is a large country geographically. Unlike many other countries, gun laws in the U.S. vary greatly from state to state and even city to city. Likewise, violent crime rates are significantly higher in some regions than others and this phenomenon can skew the statistics for the country as a whole. What has been learned within the U.S. is that more restrictive gun laws don't seem to be able to reduce violent crime in any meaningful way. By and large areas with relatively lax firearms laws have violent crime rates equal to or lower than areas with restrictive firearms laws.
The reason that most of us here choose to own and carry firearms, however, has relatively little to do with violent crime rates and statistics. Instead, most of us have come to the realization that the only people who can be depended upon to ensure safety from violent attack for ourselves and our loved ones is us. Police are not omnipotent or omnipresent and they simply cannot ensure the safety of everyone at all times.
I, thankfully, have never been involved in a situation in which it was necessary for me to use a firearm or any other type of deadly force to defend my life or those of my loved ones. I live in a relatively safe area and I do not engage in behavior that puts me at greater risk for violent assault. Despite this, however, I have a few times in my relatively short life found myself in situations in which I thought that my life might soon be in jeopardy because of the actions of others. Coming to the realization that someone may very well wish you harm and that should he decide to act on that desire you will be completely at his mercy is a sickening feeling and one that I do not wish to ever experience again. It is for this reason that I choose to own firearms and, whenever legally possible, carry them with me wherever I go. Regardless of how low-risk one's lifestyle or how safe an area he or she frequents, bad things sometimes happen to good people and I for one have absolutely no intention of relying upon the mercy of evil people.
The one, totally "politically incorrect" issue that nobody will dare address is that many (not all) of the countries in the world have homogenous populations, which tend to result in more peaceable populations.
The situation in the U.S. is quite the opposite.
Sadly, we have many violent elements in the United States that dictate the necessity to be armed for self defense.
The situation in the U.S. is quite the opposite.
Sadly, we have many violent elements in the United States that dictate the necessity to be armed for self defense.
It depends on how you define "homogenous" I suppose. Mixing Shiite and Sunni Muslims doesn't seem to produce a very homogenous or peaceable situation in Iraq nor did mixing Muslims and Hindus in India. However, you are correct that the populations of most first-world nations, particularly those in Western Europe, is relatively homogenous and peaceful.
- Status