Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aramike
Quote:
|
Do you really think the state restrains itself out of fear of armed violence? Regardless of gun ownership laws, the state still has the overwhelming advantage in firepower. The people can respond with armed violence, but it would just be suicide.
|
The reason for the state's restraint has a lot to do with the fact that the state's armies are made up of citizens who enjoy the same freedoms that the people do.
What do you think is the reason that the members of our armed forces lean overwhelmingly conservative?
More importantly, consider how the same side of the political spectrum historically favors intense gun-control AND cutting our military capability... |
I think that last point is merely a coincidence. If the Republicans suddenly did an about-face and became more pro-gun control than the Dems (without changing their positions on defense and national security) they probably wouldn't lose too much support from the military.
The real reason for government's restraint in America (I hate using the term 'state' here, since our government is hardly a monolithic, unchanging entity) is our overriding respect for institutions and the rule of law. Today that respect is so entrenched and ingrained in our society that it is hard to imagine anybody being able to muster enough power to go against it. If somebody tried, nobody would follow their orders, and without the military's support they wouldn't be able to enforce their will. Since, as you mentioned, our military is well integrated into our society and shares the same general values as the citizenry, that support would be very unlikely.
But if a Seven Days in May style scenario were to occur, where the US military firmly backed an aspiring dictator's attempt to seize power through force, then I don't think they would be stopped by the 2nd Amendment.