Philadelphia Open Carry

[PonceDeLeon]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

There are also a number of other possible scenarios that would certainly justify a well armed populace besides just an out and out revolution.

It’s too doggone difficult to accurately predict the future and history has proven over and over and over again that an unarmed citizenry has suffered the wrath of tyrannical governments much, much more often. If one ignores history one is doomed to repeat it.

[/quote]

Can you elaborate on the other possible scenarios? Do you mean shooting intruders? I’m fine with that, but what prompted this entire debate was NOT that scenario. Am I right?

Those “tyrannical governments”–Ghaddafi, Hussein, Khomeini, Mobarak, Pinochet, Pol Pot, etc.–were NOT governments where the president could be impeached because he got his dick sucked. Their (non existent) political process would never allow for that sort of thing; hell, it wouldn’t typically allow for term limits, let alone the system of checks and balances.

And the media, as much garbage as they propagate, is wide spread, by virtue of the history of journalism, how it’s practiced, and how popular sentiment can now be spread WITHOUT CENSORSHIP that we see from those “tyrannical governments” (see social media and other channels that people use to consume entertainment/information).

Our political structure does NOT allow for the marriage of military and ruling party, where the party abuses its citizenry with military assistance, as we’ve witnessed with those “tyrannical governments.”

To talk of some future government tyranny that would make James Cameron wet himself is seriously in the realm of science fiction WHEN DISCUSSING AMERICAN POLITICS.

(caps for emphasis, not because I’m “yelling” or angry with you, but because people scan for keywords and not tone/argument.)

Summary:

Compared to those tyrannical governments and the people under their rule, America lacks:

A) the same degree of censorship of information and the central control over communication infrastructure (e.g. telecom) that would hinder its population from “spreading the word”…

B) a political system that would allow a single person, of tremendous wealth and power (e.g. military affiliation and thus abuse of military to enforce unjust laws on the citizenry) to rule…

C) isolation and thus less media coverage that would keep the world in the dark about what’s going on on American soil (so allies and the world would pressure the US, especially economically, to change, and America would not want to hurt its own economy)

D) a massive differential between the ruling elite and the MAJORITY (i.e. the middle class) that would cause the majority to be willing to risk itself (well being, professional reputation, etc.) and even take up arms like true rebels fighting oppressive governments…

All conditions–I’m sure there are more, but I’m simply exhausted–that make a country “fertile” grounds for an honest, old fashioned revolution.

We can have hot topics that will always be the center of national conversation…but, in my opinion, we simply lack the conditions that would make our populace want to “overthrow” its own government.

And I’m still not against guns, but I’m against the “tyrannical governments” argument.

[PonceDeLeon]

But I’d still have my nice little handgun, loaded and sitting at home, in case of any intruders

The irony is that I was going to post in a gun thread asking for advice. Now you’ve just made me gun shy.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit.

(you must be in Hawaii…again…because it’s like 2:30 am in Montana)

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

…defending oneself against tyranny…won’t be happening in our lifetime. Antiquated argument…

[/quote]

By the way if you’re gonna bring your “antiquated argument” pinata to our party at least hang it out there where we can whack at it for crying out loud. In other words why is it such an antiquated argument? Just because YOU say so?[/quote]

No problem. Just keep posting those vacation photos

No, not simply because I say so.

“Antiquated,” because of the time period in which the argument was founded; the argument was a reflection of those times, i.e. the time of an oppressive rule over a small populace of a fairly UNIFORM DEMOGRAPHIC–i.e., shared the same plight, roughly same social class–or at least FAR more uniform than what exists today: a much larger populace, spread out across this vast country, with much more variance in the populace in terms of social class.

So, if we had a small ruling “elite” social class with the remainder of the country dirt poor–read: the appropriate economic conditions that would lead them to be pissed at their condition, thus wanting to cause a REVOLUTION and NOT simply a reform–then the MAJORITY lower class would be a dangerous force (just by sheer numbers and the degree of SHARED discontent), and that danger would pre-empt the ruling minority elite to use force and fear, the tactics we witness regimes like Ghadaffi’s using.

As it stands, the way our society is structured–an apathetic MAJORITY middle class, apathetic because whatever their conditions, things are “good enough” and thus not enough to cause them to take up violent ARMS against the upper class/government (and the middle class has too much at stake to throw it away and become rebels, so a revolution is not on its To Do list)–we likely won’t ever, EVER need the “right to bear arms” solely for the off chance that the government declares martial law enforceable by violence.

I am NOT saying that guns should be outlawed, I am saying that the argument used to justify a RIGHT to bear arms, the argument that was used when the idea was founded, is OUT OF PLACE in today’s fabric of society. It just doesn’t hold.

If we had some military arm of the incumbent or even opposing party, like the Philippines in 2006, or the threat of coup d’etats, then the “antiquated argument” would hold water.

For example, there is too much foreign interest in America (for the good of the country, I mean), financially, for the government to want a shit storm of a domestic situation as its PR. I doubt the govt would risk it, using force on its own people or even allowing them to reach the point of such discontent that a true revolution would be a concern.

America has too much to lose to allow itself to break down like that. If it were to break down, it wouldn’t be due to a general feeling of disenfranchisement by the majority (middle PLUS poor), it would have to be MANY factors layered and brewing for decades, i.e. a period of time that would see multiple presidencies and thus multiple ideologies/political platforms and reactions to the growing problems, each side responding differently but not likely that each side would EQUALLY EXACERBATE the problem(s).[/quote]

Thoughtful post. Welcome to the debate.

[PonceDeLeon]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

There are also a number of other possible scenarios that would certainly justify a well armed populace besides just an out and out revolution.

It’s too doggone difficult to accurately predict the future and history has proven over and over and over again that an unarmed citizenry has suffered the wrath of tyrannical governments much, much more often. If one ignores history one is doomed to repeat it.

[/quote]

Can you elaborate on the other possible scenarios?..

[/quote]

Here’s one (not necessarily a scenario): I propose that the sheer vast numbers of weapons in EVERY single city, town, farm, ranch, place of business, etc., coast to coast would pose a hugely serious logistical and strategic obstacle to, let’s call him/her/it a “mini-tyrant” or maybe a “quasi” or “semi tyrant”

Now I’m not suggesting a Qadafi-esque character will be in power in the USA and tanks will roll in the streets while Venezuela and the Organization for American States reinforces us rebels with a strategic aerial campaign. Rather I’m suggesting a liberal Congress and President may propose legislation that severely restricts private gun ownership, maybe even eliminates it (an act of tyranny in the minds of tens or hundreds of millions of Americans for sure).

Part of the bill mandates a period of voluntary surrender, ala Britain and Australia’s gun control efforts of recent years, followed by door to door searches (with or without search warrants) by the Dept of Homeland Security or whatever new federal agency gets plopped on the citizenry.

The absolutely gargantuan task of enforcing that law, that is, taking on 60 - 80 million citizens who possess ~200 million weapons would definitely be a major factor in the defeat of the bill or at the very least the bill never even clearing both Houses of Congress or getting signed by a sensible chief executive. So while the guns themselves never get a chance to be fired at a physical tyrant they did their job of resisting tyranny just by their existence. Their unfired existence.

In fact I think this may very well be one of the reasons why a bill like this stands no present chance of even making it out of committee.
[/quote]

Fair, but let’s flesh out this hypothetical by applying some REAL variables:

Central government tries to enforce certain laws that the general populace violently opposes (metaphorically speaking).

State and local governments (48 continental state govs, disregarding the innumerable local govs) would have to be UNANIMOUSLY “on board” with the central government on those laws, such that these more granular governments will enforce those laws, else the central government would have to “invade” each state and declare a state (no pun? hmm, can’t decide) of martial law.

The fact that some states have vastly different attitudes toward certain issues–immigration, labor, death penalty–and the fact the central government can at best represent 1, if not 2 party ideologies, means (in my opinion) that there would be far more than just 1 state whose stance on the same issues would sharply differ; what I’m saying is, the variance in state and local government attitudes on topics deemed fundamental to our way of life would effectively act as a diffuser against the central government trying to install unpopular laws.

I would like to see an infographic (or just a report) on the number of countries whose “tyrannical governments” had to face a similar situation: many state/provinces with effectively their own way of governing, a pseudo-sovereignty, if you will, and how quickly these regions were “made” (especially by FORCE) to comply with an oppressive rule.

Put another way, countries that would even allow for such sovereignty at a local level are NOT the countries where a militant party could take power; local government is a concept that would go against the aspirations of totalitarian rule.

The fact, for instance, that CA law and fed law can differ on the issue of legalized marijuana–hell, even if same sex marriage in various states–is testament to my point above, that individual state governments would have to be “taken over” BY FORCE by the central government–and really, the central government would have to have the same militant party in power at all levels, so House, Senate, presidency, etc.–which would not be an overnight affair, so no coup d’etats for us. Again, the amount of time it would take for this complete, militant take over would fall outside the typical term limits for state/local/central gov officials. Even among members of the same party, we have seen a WIDE gamut of sentiment on the same issues.

Our current political structure simply has too many “fail safes.”

Question for push and “push-ites”

What’s wrong with allowing the right to possess, but with the stipulation that you can’t bring it out of your home? That would virtually nullify the argument in favor of bearing arms that deals with safety against home intrusion.

And let’s say there was a significant punishment for violating this, something like the loss of the right to vote or suspension of actual citizenship or something.

Of course the punishment would have to be administered after substantial due process of law, not a televised coin toss.

[PonceDeLeon]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

There are also a number of other possible scenarios that would certainly justify a well armed populace besides just an out and out revolution.

It’s too doggone difficult to accurately predict the future and history has proven over and over and over again that an unarmed citizenry has suffered the wrath of tyrannical governments much, much more often. If one ignores history one is doomed to repeat it.

[/quote]

Can you elaborate on the other possible scenarios?..

[/quote]

Rather I’m suggesting a liberal Congress and President may propose legislation that severely restricts private gun ownership, maybe even eliminates it (an act of tyranny in the minds of tens or hundreds of millions of Americans for sure).
[/quote]

I’m glad you mentioned this.

Again, a true REVOLUTION would require the same sentiment among the MAJORITY (our middle class in America) on the issues that stir up the country.

Would you say that a majority of our MAJORITY feel the exact same way about gun ownership, that the restriction of gun ownership would literally cause them to be so pissed that they’d want to VIOLENTLY overthrow their own government?

Restriction of gun ownership does not force a life and death scenario. We’re not talking about a right that MOST (again, most of the MIDDLE CLASS in this country) would consider fundamental to their way of life (and I’m not talking about the dozens of gun owners YOU personally know who might feel this way, I am talking about at least 50 million of our middle class or whatever the size is, sharing the EXACT sentiment).

This is NOT an issue on par with the Civil Rights movement.

Even among those who DO feel that gun ownership is a fundamental right, I would put money that not EVERY one of these individuals is prepared to actually DIE to make a statement. They would have to care far more about owning a gun than their job/family/peer approval and everything else they have worked for in life.

You would give up the beautiful women–hell, even your wife and own family–the outdoors (hunting, naked snowmobiling), your dogs, the traveling, the job you have…risk your LIFE to tell the government, “Hey man! Fuck you! I deserve to own a gun!” in a VIOLENT uprising?

Gun ownership does not affect your physical well being in your DAY TO DAY (please don’t distort this with hypothetical scenarios OR even the statistically SMALL scenario of home defense, relative to a person’s AVERAGE LIFETIME, I’m talking about it compared to food/water/air/VOTING on key issues). THOSE issues would cause a citizenry–and only given the right circumstances–to rise up violently.

Of the most heated issues of the last 10-20 years, which would you say our entire populace would be willing to DIE for? Being a revolutionary is a full time job. You accept the identity of “revolutionary,” which effectively means you know that any day could be your last on earth.

For example, do we have 10s of MILLIONS of Americans who’d be willing to die to prove that their gang color is superior to another gang’s? No. I mean, gang violence is ABSURD in itself, but do those gang bangers typically hold jobs and function as the average member of our MAJORITY middle class–employed, mostly educated, aspirations to move up in the world, to get married, to start families–and thus feel like they have something to lose? No, because the GANG is their family, and they typically (I don’t want to assert myself as an expert on gangs, I’m not) don’t have anything to lose, and hence become dangerous because they’re willing to die.

The average member of our middle class has MUCH to lose, nevermind that he/she hasn’t grown up in a generation that accepts dying for a cause as some noble thing. Again, I am NOT talking about minorities and say, the Civil Rights movement. I am talking about the willingness to die as a part of the MIDDLE CLASS (remember, the pre-condition I stated for a revolution is discontent among the majority) American psyche. It’s simply not there.

To reiterate, I am not against guns.

[PonceDeLeon]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ponce, let me reiterate. Resisting tyranny is not necessarily done through a violent revolution. It can be a passive inherent resistance that therefore prevents the tyranny from even arising in the first place.

Also, read the book “One Second After.”[/quote]

I agree with you re: resisting tyranny, but the argument of “tyrannical governments” in a discussion about the “right to bear arms” typically implies the ORIGINAL context of the argument–the historical context, rising up against an unpopular and oppressive rule–violently.

And if the counter argument is that mass gun ownership is a DETERRENT to an oppressive government (like having nukes, right?), I would counter the counter by saying that, again, risking one’s life is the deterrent to rising up violently, as was done by our forefathers.

I’ll read that book but it’ll be at the bottom of a large and growing To Read pile.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

There are also a number of other possible scenarios that would certainly justify a well armed populace besides just an out and out revolution.

It’s too doggone difficult to accurately predict the future and history has proven over and over and over again that an unarmed citizenry has suffered the wrath of tyrannical governments much, much more often. If one ignores history one is doomed to repeat it.

[/quote]

Can you elaborate on the other possible scenarios?..

[/quote]

Here’s one (not necessarily a scenario): I propose that the sheer vast numbers of weapons in EVERY single city, town, farm, ranch, place of business, etc., coast to coast would pose a hugely serious logistical and strategic obstacle to, let’s call him/her/it a “mini-tyrant” or maybe a “quasi” or “semi tyrant”

Now I’m not suggesting a Qadafi-esque character will be in power in the USA and tanks will roll in the streets while Venezuela and the Organization for American States reinforces us rebels with a strategic aerial campaign. Rather I’m suggesting a liberal Congress and President may propose legislation that severely restricts private gun ownership, maybe even eliminates it (an act of tyranny in the minds of tens or hundreds of millions of Americans for sure).

Part of the bill mandates a period of voluntary surrender, ala Britain and Australia’s gun control efforts of recent years, followed by door to door searches (with or without search warrants) by the Dept of Homeland Security or whatever new federal agency gets plopped on the citizenry.

The absolutely gargantuan task of enforcing that law, that is, taking on 60 - 80 million citizens who possess ~200 million weapons would definitely be a major factor in the defeat of the bill or at the very least the bill never even clearing both Houses of Congress or getting signed by a sensible chief executive. So while the guns themselves never get a chance to be fired at a physical tyrant they did their job of resisting tyranny just by their existence. Their unfired existence.

In fact I think this may very well be one of the reasons why a bill like this stands no present chance of even making it out of committee.
[/quote]

Fair, but let’s flesh out this hypothetical by applying some REAL variables:

Central government tries to enforce certain laws that the general populace violently opposes (metaphorically speaking).

State and local governments (48 continental state govs, disregarding the innumerable local govs) would have to be UNANIMOUSLY “on board” with the central government on those laws, such that these more granular governments will enforce those laws, else the central government would have to “invade” each state and declare a state (no pun? hmm, can’t decide) of martial law.

The fact that some states have vastly different attitudes toward certain issues–immigration, labor, death penalty–and the fact the central government can at best represent 1, if not 2 party ideologies, means (in my opinion) that there would be far more than just 1 state whose stance on the same issues would sharply differ; what I’m saying is, the variance in state and local government attitudes on topics deemed fundamental to our way of life would effectively act as a diffuser against the central government trying to install unpopular laws.

I would like to see an infographic (or just a report) on the number of countries whose “tyrannical governments” had to face a similar situation: many state/provinces with effectively their own way of governing, a pseudo-sovereignty, if you will, and how quickly these regions were “made” (especially by FORCE) to comply with an oppressive rule.

Put another way, countries that would even allow for such sovereignty at a local level are NOT the countries where a militant party could take power; local government is a concept that would go against the aspirations of totalitarian rule.

The fact, for instance, that CA law and fed law can differ on the issue of legalized marijuana–hell, even if same sex marriage in various states–is testament to my point above, that individual state governments would have to be “taken over” BY FORCE by the central government–and really, the central government would have to have the same militant party in power at all levels, so House, Senate, presidency, etc.–which would not be an overnight affair, so no coup d’etats for us. Again, the amount of time it would take for this complete, militant take over would fall outside the typical term limits for state/local/central gov officials. Even among members of the same party, we have seen a WIDE gamut of sentiment on the same issues.

Our current political structure simply has too many “fail safes.”

Question for push and “push-ites”

What’s wrong with allowing the right to possess, but with the stipulation that you can’t bring it out of your home? That would virtually nullify the argument in favor of bearing arms that deals with safety against home intrusion.

And let’s say there was a significant punishment for violating this, something like the loss of the right to vote or suspension of actual citizenship or something.

Of course the punishment would have to be administered after substantial due process of law, not a televised coin toss.[/quote]

Good thought provoking post!