Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Continued from the 'Terrorist Attack In South Carolina' Thread:


We've already side-stepped from another tragedy to another gun control argument. I'd like to side-step a little further, into other reasons why the United States and other countries don't always understand each other.

Firstly, thank you for replying over here, I imagine you might need to prune and bring across other comments as time goes on because it's inevitable that this shooting has brought up the gun control question.

We are currently commemorating the 100th anniversary of the First World War, and a new thread has been started observing the 75th anniversary of the Battle Of Britain. One of the things I've encountered from various Europeans of my acquaintance over the years is a mild animosity towards the United States over our reluctance to get involved in either of those wars until rather late in the game. In one case it was more than mild, tending towards outright condemnation.

Secondly, an apology from me on behalf of Europe for the treatment you received in that regard. Whilst I believe that it can be used as a tool to rib America with, I certainly do not think that it's something that can be used as condemnation. America had her reasons for entering the wars when she did, and certainly in the case of the Second World War, Roosevelt did everything he could, short of actual declaration in order to help keep the Allies afloat before Germanys declaration of war on America.
I think people tend to forget the lend lease supplies, certainly in Western Europe, but I know that Russia has never forgotten, and it's a shame that there are such enmities between East and West again at the moment because there's a debt of gratitude there for both the lend-lease equipment and the men (such as Jimbunas father) who delivered it.

I had to explain and remind that our Revolution was against British actions, yet we always faced the reminder that we were still British ourselves. This meant maintaining a hostility toward our closest relatives while holding court with our traditional enemies. The fact that the closest of those enemies (France) was also our greatest help during our break with Britain might have made a difference, but then we had to face a new France that had killed the royalty and nobility who had helped us and set up a new, supposedly democratic but in actuality truly tyrannical government, which was itself soon replaced by an outright dictatorship.

I think that the United States of America is possibly one of the few nations who has faced a revolution that did not involve major loss of life amongst its own people. Not immediately at least. France underwent the reign of terror, Russia had civil war and purges, it's one of the things that has always tempered my left leanings and made me cautious of the people that call for revolution. They're always rather vague about what will replace the status quo.

Where all of this led was to our first president, after having allied himself with the British against the French, which cause trouble for the next two administrations, finished his second term with an admonishment that "... nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just & amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated."
-George Washington, Farewell Address, 1797

It's a wise move, really, honestly a move of self-preservation, since Europe of that time, and the century before and after it, was a place of war and rival nations. It always bemuses me (if that's the right word) that we are now in the longest period of peace in Europe since the days of the Roman Empire.
Besides, America of the early 1800s was still focusing inward, expanding west, dealing with the Native American situation, straightening out borders with Mexico and British Canada. The last thing you'd want to do is to get involved in a European war. Of course, that didn't stop you from winding up in one in 1812, but that, really I think was a case of tying up matters left over from the War of Independence.

In fact after breaking the ties with France formed in 1778 the United States did not enter into another formal military alliance until the creation of NATO in 1949. Many of us consider the alliances that led to World War 1 to be the perfect justification for our reluctance to do the same.

Perfectly understandable, and, honestly, for a nation such as America, you have the luxury of being able to consider isolation as an option, even though it eventually does lead to not inconsiderable problems. We once, perhaps, could have felt the same back when we had our considerable colonial holdings, but as a small island nation now, we are sadly lost in reminiscing about our past with delusions of grandeur. It's one of the reasons I'm in support of the EU, the nations of Europe are insignificant on their own now, the people we once sneered at as 'backward' have overtaken us, it took them longer because they were geographically larger, but they did it, and now western Europe can only consider itself relevant as a unified force.

The basic concept in America is that the government has no rights. Any power granted to the government is done so by the people. If you trust the government so much that you give up your freedoms to them, what do you do in the case where the government does indeed turn tyrannical and decides to take the rest? No trust should ever be placed in the government. It should serve the people, and never the other way around.

Now this is the meat of the matter. Yet, I think that people will give up certain freedoms depending on how they are asked to do so. Now, something like the Second Amendment is too big a thing to tackle in any particular way, you can chip away at it, and slowly sleepwalk a country into it. Just as an act such as the PATRIOT act was passed through with begrudging acceptance as necessary because of 9/11 and the new threat of terror. Benjamin Franklin called it years ago, and I'm sure I don't need to repeat the quote.
Now, you make an important point in the last sentence of your paragraph there, A government should serve the people and never the other way around. I fully agree with this, completely. However, there are a lot of problems in how much a government can help and serve the people without in turn people serving the government. It is, I believe, a two-way street. In this particular example, surely it is the role of the government to help reduce domestic terrorist attacks on its people? However, the government would face a quandary, as indeed it does, in how to do such a thing while preserving the second amendment. Catch-22.
One day someone might come up with an answer to that question, and they'll probably be made President. I hope it isn't me that thinks of the answer.

A good question. The answer would seem to be none, which could be said to imply that our distrust is wrong. On the other hand it could be said to imply that

A) The people in charge of the government are themselves distrustful, and are careful to keep it that way, or

B) The government is careful not to earn that distrust because they've see what happens when we don't like the way the government treats us.

A sceptical mind in regards to government is a healthy thing, but I think that the US is fast approaching the point where technology is going to make that approach to keeping tyrannical government in check a thing of the past. Once it was safely assumed that if a government went tyrannical that the military would split and that the defenders would at least have the aid of some military force in the inevitable war.
However, as the military moves towards a robotic force requiring less manpower to operate a similar amount of destructive potential, then a tyrannical government would have little to fear of its people.
Earlier in this exact thread I posed the question of how much effectiveness an AR15 would pose against a Predator drone at 15,000 ft.
As technology goes on and machine replaces man in the military, small amounts of people are going to wield a lot of power, and it will only take the loyalty of these people in order to rob the public of a defensive army.
I dare say there would be compromises, it certainly wouldn't go all the governments way, but as Harvs pointed out, it has been a very long time since the Second Amendment was written, and I think that the part of it that retains to protecting the American people against a tyrannical government needs to be re-examined closely in light of new technology.

Possibly, possibly not, but without an armed citizenry what is to keep that from happening? As people have also stated in the US, the Second Amendment is what makes the First Amendment possible. Like the other, that is a trite homily, but there is also some truth behind it. If your leaders stated tomorrow that no books could be published without direct permission from Parliament, what could anyone do about it?

One would hope that such a leader would be swiftly removed by parliament, or indeed by Her Majesty herself. There are some checks and balances in our political system in order to prevent the rise of tyranny, however the disconnect between the elite in Westminster and the general public as well as the complete mess that is the 'First Past the Post' voting system does show that it's not perfect and I think that in the next century or two there's going to be problems from that.

Ultimately, in both our nations, power lies in the military rather than in the people. They are the ones that, whilst not controlling all the guns, do control the big guns, the tanks, the jets, the helicopters and the drones.
When the people rose up in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood was elected into power, it was the military that removed them and put into power a government of their own, and it's the military that has spent its time since then systematically rounding up and arresting as many Muslim Brotherhood and former Mubarak ministers as it can.

I read that article, and it is more than a little biased. The author mentions the disarming of the Jews, but justifies it with the point that very few of them were armed anyway, and their handful of guns was of no help in Warsaw and they may have even made it worse. My objection to that is that the author implies that they shouldn't have tried at all. The gun-rights advocate would point out that if they had all been armed it might have been a different story. I will only point out that while it is true that the Nazis did relax gun control, they only did so for the "right" people. The also disarmed the populace of the countries they conquered and occupied.

Yeah, I do apologise for the bias, it was the first article I came across whilst googling for that particular situation. I do see where you're coming from in regards to the Jewish resistance, and indeed you can see that the French did put up a good resistance of their own. Ultimately though, it needed the backing of the Allied army to achieve its goal of a free France.

Of course the author of the article is a gun-control advocate. The problem there is that every article arguing the other side is also a highly biased gun advocate site. There seems to be no one willing to look at both sides of the question and seek honest answers.

That is the sad truth there. Too many people shout at each other rather than listen.

It could also be argued that those greater freedoms are granted by the government, and are in place only so long as the government continues to grant them.

It can be truthfully argued indeed.

One can only hope that some equitable solution is found before that happens.

Likewise, it would be a very sad day for the world if America were to undergo a Second civil war.

And now I've stayed up way past my bedtime, and I have to go crash.

And I, almost time for me to crash into bed too. It's always a pleasure to discuss these things with you, and a learning experience too.