The Right To Keep and Bear Arms

Whaddayathink about it?

I'm pretty much what the media tends to call a gun nut.

On RKBA, I believe two things:

• )People have (or should have) an unqualified right to use lethal force to defend themselves from physical aggression.
• )People have an inherent right to overthrow a government they do not consider legitimate. The government can't take the means of doing so away from them. If the government can own a weapon (or armor) civvies should be allowed to own them too.

The only exception is explosives and WMD. Say what you will about governments, they tend to store that stuff somewhat safely. I doubt a random gun nut can keep explosives or WMD adequately stored (only non-professional guys using explosives are terr'rists. They score own goals far too often to trust amateurs with HE). Rights or no rights, you ain't no bussiness storing stuff that can kill tens of thousands of people. Also, a nutter pulls on someone, you can shoot'em before they cause too much harm. A nutter with explosives pulls on someone, tragedy ensues.

edited 12th Jul '11 4:19:36 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Inb4 obligatory "Right to Keep and Arm Bears" joke◊

• Is that an axiom? Otherwise, why?
• Overthrowing governments with weapons... has a very bad track record when it comes to the sort of regime that results. And the US government can stop any armed rebellion anytime, amendments be damned, as long as the military is on its side. Unarmed civilian uprisings are a bit harder to beat. More importantly, "people", how much of the people? How large a proportion? What if it's only a Violent Minority?
• Counterexample of "one nutter is easy to stop": Columbia shootings.

edited 12th Jul '11 4:24:42 PM by GoodGuyGreg

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

I respect the right, so I will never ask for a ban, because thats how the law works.

That said, guns terrify me, and the thought of everyone having one on them terrifies me even more.

Anything the military can have the civilians should be able to have. Yes even things like machine guns, explosives, artillery and missiles. (Your average punk drug dealers won't be able to afford that shit and it's fairly easy to track compared to pistols.)

Say what you will that people don't need it, but if somebody say like me wants to mount a Browning .50 cal on the back of a truck to go have some fun out on a backroad against wooden targets you have no right to tell me I can't.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

And whats to stop the person who puts a Browning .50 on their truck and goes off killing hundreds in a crowded street?

edited 12th Jul '11 4:23:33 PM by Thorn14

Traffic laws might give them an excuse to ban your recreational technical for public road use.

Heavy weapons probably make other drivers quite twitchy.

edited 12th Jul '11 4:26:25 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Because drug dealers are the only people who are going to misuse guns and other dangerous weapons. >>

"Without a fairy, you're not even a real man!" ~ Mido from Ocarina of Time

No. The very idea a government embodies is to be the collective power, which citizens have given up to enforce it themselves by being part of the nation, to enforce the law that it's citizens have agreed upon.

Thus no need for citizens to bear weapons.

Programming and surgery have a lot of things in common: Don't start removing colons until you know what you're doing.

This. Whos to say some crazy gun nut (not saying every gun person is like this, I'm saying a CRAZY ONE) who has full access to say, RP Gs, wont just blow the shit out of a local police station?

edited 12th Jul '11 4:30:16 PM by Thorn14

What about oppressive/tyrannical governments? The people have a right to overthrow those.

If a non-fascistic government keeps the people disarmed, how exactly will the people put it down if it chooses to go fascist or is taken over by thugs?

edited 12th Jul '11 4:32:39 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I agree that everyone has the right to defend themselves - even using lethal force if that's necessary. But I don't really agree that in order for that to happen everybody has to have guns.

And I think I've outlined the problems with the second point in another thread - that is, the people trying to overthrow your government are unlikely to be good guys rebelling against tyranny. They're more likely to be tyrants themselves.

Be not afraid...

It's not about my government. It's about any government.

Way I see it, if the RKBA is respected, the government can't stop a horde of citizens being in the capital armed to the teeth. So before government or police could do a thing, IF the people want to put the government down, they can riot, charge inside their local Parliament, and shoot everything.

Presumably, ordinary people that don't consider themselves oppressed wouldn't charge inside Parliament with a massacre in mind. So as long as the government doesn't have a quite large chunk of the people believing they're intolerably oppressed, they won't be violently overthrown.

If a government goes tyrannical and oppresses a large chunk of the populace, it becomes more likely that they'll get pissed off, riot with their guns, and make the country's leadership bloodily vacant.

It's not the cleanest or safest or nicest check on governmental power, but it's a big one. Obligatory Founding Fathers Quote: An armed man is a citizen... An unarmed man a subject.

As long as the government lets you keep your guns, they're essentially saying we're going to try not to piss you off enough that you kill us all. When they take away your guns, they're saying I'm going to do whatever the Hell I want, and you won't have the means to stop it. I guess the United States are a special case: the government doesn't take away the guns, but they do erode civil rights. From a game theory standpoint, it looks like an unwise move, but for some reason it isn't.

edited 12th Jul '11 4:47:20 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Yes, if a government does not comply with its nation's constitution or the wellbeing of the people a change is indeed in order. But this in itself has nothing to do with owning weapons in a well functioning state to begin with.

Probably sounds bland, but: "This isn't supposed to happen in the first place and should be countermeasured regardingly."

Programming and surgery have a lot of things in common: Don't start removing colons until you know what you're doing.

Rights are supplied by governments and similar bodies. Unless you belong to some other group that grants you the right (e.g. the UN), possession of the right to overthrow an oppressive government is nonsensical.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

@Bobby G: Shouldn't Libyans, Cubans, Saudis or North Koreans have the right to depose their governments?

I rest my case. Way I see it, sovereignty rests on the people, not their government. Government (if legitimate) is established through the consent of the governed. Should they withdraw their consent, they're entitled to de-establish it.

edited 12th Jul '11 4:52:08 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I don't see how "should" is relevant.

Say you're an oppressive government. Why would you give your country's population the right or the ability to overthrow you?

Say you're a revolutionary. Why do you care whether you have the right to bear arms that could be used to overthrow the government? You think that if you have that right, they're going to let you just waltz in and overthrow them, with no resistance?

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

If you have that right and freedom of association, organizing a revolutionary movement with its militia gets much more feasible.

Should the government attempt to take away wither, it'd be time to put them to good use.

You're not supposed to use them after the government becomes an evil tyranny. You're supposed to use them while it does.

edited 12th Jul '11 4:55:15 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Oh, that's nice. And if you had the right to kill politicians without being obstructed, that would make assassination a lot easier, too.

Edit: ah, ninja'd. So you're talking more about a safeguard against tyranny?

edited 12th Jul '11 4:55:54 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

No thanks. I kind of like not getting shot by random hobos.

Sure, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Well, it's nice for the outlaws to wear identification tags, I'd say. That, and if weapons are difficult to get, only the really hardened and determined criminals would have them, not the stressed office worker who got a bad idea.

So if someone asks me whether guns for citizens should be legal, my answer will always be "No. Just... No". Thank you very much.

Keep and Arm Bears? That can't go well.

I think it's a poorly written part of the Constitution that exemplifies why the whole thing needs to be re-written and improved.

My attitude is that anyone who wants to buy guns better be given good training, a thorough background check and a good mental evaluation. Guns are dangerous and really shouldn't be treated lightly.

edited 12th Jul '11 5:03:00 PM by Alichains

Yes. Let's say we live in the Democratic Republic of Whatever. We have a generally non-oppressive and rights-abiding govt, where free speech, RKBA and freedom of association is respected.

If someone tries to organize a rebellion, the government is fully entitled to dismantle it and try them for conspiracy! In the event of a revolution, of course they'll resist!

Still, presumably there are political groups and parties. Their members are citizens, and many own guns. There are two checks and balances, though:

• The government has guns, too.
• Other political parties and factions are made of citizens, many of which also own guns.

Say the Army attempts a coup, or the party in government goes authoritarian and tries to remove the people's rights. Then the Average Joes that form every other political group grab their rifles and stop it. How would they get organized? Through their political factions. Odds are, they'd have a list of events on which they agree they'd have to attempt a revolution. When those things happened, they would.

edited 12th Jul '11 5:04:54 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

If everyone was responsible with guns, I wouldn't have much of an issue with it. However most people are anything but responsible. Especially with guns.

You forget the army will have all the training too.

edited 12th Jul '11 5:03:18 PM by Thorn14

We have very restricted gun control (I think you can have a shotgun if you're a farmer or something) and we get by rather well. Although I agree that people have the right to defend themselves, I don't beleive that anyone in a strong democracy like those in North America and Europe will ever need to start shooting government officials.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

I'm all for the right to own guns (sorta ambivalent on open carrying due to practical considerations), but I don't think overthrowing the government is the best justification, however frequently that angle might be romanticised.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff