Originally Posted by belch
How big? Well, not to intentionally answer a question with a question, but in this case I cannot resist. How big does a group need to be to accomplish their aims or goals? What if there goal is to murder school aged children in Connecticut...or Norway...or Russia...?
|
Not a big group to conduct some killings. That's not the point I was making. You said you feared oppression by a group with guns over a group without guns. How big a group with guns do you think is needed to gain control oppress millions of other people who have a national army of approximately 1/200?
I mean, the RAF (not the Royal Air Force) in Germany consisted of a few people. They were known as a terrorist group, but in the end would never have been able to achieve their ultimate goals.
The things you fear most is one of these groups taking control, but that's simply very unlikely if the fast majority disagrees with their principles. They would never get the army behind them. And because the army exists from people with all kinds of political backgrounds as it should in a democracy, like yours, you wouldn't see an army repress its own people.
That only happens if the army is of one group, repressive of its own troops and not bound by law. Typically one only needs to fear the generals that directly control their own armies and where the army's loyalty is not to the state, but that general. You often heard Malorn mention the Roman Republic as a model, but it's that model that allowed armies to be more loyal to a consul or general (they paid their wages and bonded during campaigns), than to the senate of Rome.
One should not expect no criminal or madman to ever acquire weapons. That's why one has (international) intelligence agencies: to try and track them down before they strike.
|
You've never seen a war won by only one weapon system ever, I would imagine.
|
WWII Japan. Though technically a combination of a bomber (delivery system) and an atomic bomb, so two weapon systems.
Which is why one doesn't want nukes to spread (non-proliferation treaty) either. Would you wish people to have their own nukes, just because your government has one?
If you think them responsible enough to handle them, then it shouldn't be a problem, right? Or is falling into the wrong hands suddenly a different argument?
It's the same argument, different scale.
|
If, however, you believe the US is leaving the Middle Eastern ventures we started 10+ years ago because the enemy has been vanquished...you are sorely mistaken. And further, if you don't think that those casualty reports, those grieving families and their friends, have had no influence on the US's sudden desire for a way out...then, I also have a bridge to sell you.
|
Not saying that, but then your middle east strategy was crap. Who disbands the national army of a defeated nation instead of taking it over to ensure the men don't go awol, start rebel groups under new warlords and the munitions depots etc remain safely under governmental control?
The Iraqi national guard literally offered their allegiance to the US and offered to keep all weapon depots guarded and safe. The next day Bush and Cheney ordered the army disbanded because it contained loyalists to Saddam. They thought disbanding it and start a new army from scratch would be better than slowly weeding out the bad seeds. Putting the tens of thousands of predominantly Sunni men (that had to feed their families) out of a stable source of income. Humiliating their part of the population and creating anger, frustration and despair in one move.
That's the single most devastating thing the USA did to Iraq and the direct cause of the strength of the Iraqi insurgency.
Immediately chaos ensued, depots were plundered, many of which by the soldiers themselves, but also by other groups that saw an opportunity to create their own militias, like Al Sadr's.
It appears US supreme command (probably the administration in particular) didn't read Sun Tzu. Some quotes:
“In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.”
“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”. If you distrust them, don't make them go into hiding. In the standing Iraqi army under new leadership, these elements would have been a lot easier to control.
“Convince your enemy that he will gain very little by attacking you; this will diminish his enthusiasm”. If you retreat based on casualties or bomb threat, that'll just be used against you in next campaigns.
“In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.” and
"There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited." Gee, wonder why. Costly toll maybe?
|
You're missing the point. The guarantee that the people can safeguard themselves against tyranny...even from the very government that the drafters of the amendment sought to establish and refine. They acknowledged that even their own ideas may be used against the very citizenry of the Republic which they hoped to create...and voted in one safeguard against that.
|
I know what you mean, but it's not a safeguard from my perspective. In fact, from my perspective it's an increased risk that can lead to totalitarian regimes by minority groups. Look at how the Soviet Union came to be: miners were armed by the Tsar to fight for him, but later convinced by the bolsjeviks to revolt. It resulted in lengthy civil war and a totalitarian regime, as the old regime and any other opposition was wiped out by force and execution.
Something similar happened with Mao. The communist partizans posed great difficulties after the war, particularly in the east. French resistance groups each had their own allegiance and political doctrines. Without a strong army presence, it would have been possible for the communist resistance groups to try a revolution. In fact, in many countries back then the communist groups had already organised for revolution, they just didn't have the weapons to do it.
I understand you think one group can contain the other, but typically if two or more groups fight, one becomes victor and the other is removed anyway. It is better to offer them a political platform and allow new parties to have their say through existing governing bodies. Allowing them to participate and the presence of Labour parties has kept the communist parties in western Europe in check too. Marx' revolution never came to be in the nations he thought most prone to them, because those countries took steps towards more benevolent democracies with more freedoms for the people.
So from my perspective, the best safeguard is a way to democratically depose of a government and ensure no single group can come to power on their own. Keep everyone happy and there's little reason for armed revolt. And that's the one thing your founding fathers in all their wisdom were unable to do: create a true democracy. You've got a two party system that doesn't require compromise from the other side. Worse, those two parties are the largest minority opinions, so you have a minority rule (if both senate, parliament and therefore president is of one party, nobody can stop them from enacting laws that only that party likes) by giving them the majority vote out of fear of a majority rule.
In coalitions (especially ones that may change the next elections), you have to listen to opposition and coalition partners as you have to cooperate, if not now then probably in the future. That ensures minority groups are heard and protected, but the majority gets their way.
That's just a ridiculous notion. You could have settled with a veto for say a 40% opposition as well.
|
Where did I say "over my dead body"?
|
Not you, but plenty of others in this thread.
|
I am an American. I get my vote on how my country is run. While I appreciate your concerns and opinions, don't mistake my open mindedness and willingness to debate this with you, to be a plea that you figure this out for me. I think I am in a much better position to understand how the laws that exist, as well as possible changes, will affect me. But thanks for the consideration.
|
I never expected you to allow me to determine your laws. As you say, I don't vote on them. However, in a debate, the goal is to try and convince your opposition or at least understand one another better. Not?
|
Yes, there are arms coming from the former Yugoslavian states....and stolen from police stations...
That is just the tip of the iceburg. You didn't mention any of the rest of the former 'Pact nations'...and you would be crazy if you didn't believe that a rather substantial amount of weapons are dealt thru "businessmen" from many of them. I'm not even talking about just small arms. But, I'm I'm not trying to poke holes in "Fortress Europa"s armor. Just remember...the Maginot Line. Many times have people felt confident that they were invulnerable, only to find something else...
|
Most those weapons from the Warschau Pakt countries have found their way to Africa and the middle east and put in the hands of civilian rebels and warlords.
Let's see what happened next...
Ah yes... Huge instability, genocides, dictatorship after dictatorship, political oppression and more of that fun stuff. You think arming all the African villages would help against night attacks by larger, organised rebel groups? Or do you reckon it'd just create an extra source of conflict and escalation between tribes and a larger source of weapons for rebel groups taking advantage?
Having weapons readily available only strengthens a larger attacker when they manage to defeat you. I've heard some pro-gun ignorants here state that Luxembourg fell to nazi Germany
because its citizens didn't have weapons. They never seem to consider the fact that 300.000 people (only half of which would be male and even less able bodied men) armed with guns and no discipline would have had to face off with millions of better armed, better trained, more disciplined, more battle hardened enemy soldiers.
These people would also point that Switzerland (more weapons per person than Luxembourg) didn't fall to the Germans. They forgot to mention it's a land with high mountain ranges, narrow passes and roads, high altitude fighting, a position of neutrality and small army (no direct threat), secret bank accounts for a lot of the nazi regime, was prepared to work with Germany in trade and resources and most importantly, wasn't of strategic important to tackle France. If Germany had wanted to take Switzerland, they would probably have done so once the UK was out of the war. And probably with limited resistance because Switzerland would be surrounded and isolated on all sides (fascist Italy, nazi Germany-Austria, Vichy-France).
The Maginot line was incomplete (didn't go all the way to the sea) and assumed the neutrality of our country to be respected. There were some British guarding the northern end, but not that many. The Maginot line itself was never tested really.
|
Yeah, that's odd. I mean, you guys don't make guns in Europe...right? (SIG, Glock, Enfield, Steyr, Fabrique Nationale, Izhmash, Tula, Berretta, Mossberg...)
|
Most of which are not privately owned nor meant for the domestic market. Unlike the weapons produced in America. you forgot to mention the whole marketing model difference? Oh dear.
You may want to note that Breivik is responsible for the equivalent of years of Norwegian murders in general, whereas Newtown isn't even noticable in your yearly murder rates.
If you look at the frequency of these murder sprees and their effectiveness, you'll note that in Europe as a whole, with a larger population, there are far less and the murders are far less effective and typically less in victim tally than in the USA (Breivik being an exception, mostly because of being on an island with no escape and lacking police response (they waited a long time and even went to the wrong island...)).
Fact is, that in the entirety of Europe, any violent murder is uncommon and murder sprees really rare and far and wide between. If you compare to the USA, you have several of these events a year. You can't deny that your record is simply worse at doing something about madmen. And that's with a much higher firearms possession rate for "defensive purposes". If anything, if your theory would be correct, there'd be fewer attacks or more attacks thwarted by gun carriers.
In reality, your domestic conflicts escalate sooner and result in a much higher death toll on a few year basis, than the entire war in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ualties_of_war
2001-present: 40K casualties.
Assuming an average of 8000 pistol and 3000 other gun deaths a year, you've had around 12x11.000 ~ triple the Iraq/Afghan war casualties, domestically.
Even if you look at the suicide ratio (60ish%?), that suicide by gun ratio is relatively higher in countries with gun control (higher percentage of suicides than homicides), than those without where a firearm is relatively much more often used for homicide.
Please don't tell me that's supposed to make me feel saver. You are your own worst enemy. :/ And it's not the government that does the killing either. They just lock you all up for being violent maniacs.