Does an armed citizenry really prevent government tyranny?

[Thesemindz]

This came up in another thread so I wanted to address it.

Do you think an armed citizenry is an effective check, or any check at all for that matter, against state oppression and tyranny?

I believe it is, and I believe that the governments do as well. I think that governments throughout history have confiscated weapons from the citizenry specifically because they believe they are a threat to their own existance.

In that other thread I posted -

Examples of this include Qin Shi Huangdi confiscating weapons to prevent uprisings when he became the first emperor of imperial China, and the Satsuma clan from Japan doing the same after invading Okinawa, or Hideyoshi's "Great Sword Hunt" designed to regulate "the possession of unnecessary implements [of war] which make difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tend to foment uprisings." The Nueva Planta decrees of 1710 imposed by Charles the Third even required that kitchen knives be strapped to tables. In 1911 Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed. In 1964 Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981 over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed, unable to defend themselves.

Now, I believe that all states are oppressive by nature and exist only through violence and theft. More than that though, I feel that history has proven that armed citizens are a threat to tyranny, and that tyrants know that and are interested in doing something about it.

What do you think?


-Rob

 

[Sukerkin]

It's an interesting point of discussion, good sir. Sadly, I'm out of steam for the day, it being heading towards half-past-two in the morning for me .

Hopefully, I'll be able to sling a couple of pence into the ring on the morrow.

 

[grydth]

It would appear that a number of history's worst dictators believed it would.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Every dictator and tyrant, every one, has banned weapons for any and all even suspected opposition. From Stalin to Hitler to Pol Pot to Idi Amin to oh, well way way back. I'm sure even today Castro doesn't allow them. Iran does not allow them. North Korea really does not allow pesants to own their own weapons.

Notice a rather large majority of nations greatly restrict arms. And many of them have had civil wars. Africa, with the excpetion of Isreal and now maybe Iraq, have draconion restrictions. Asia is the same way (in fact I don't know of any country in Asia that allows citizens to own weapons like the United States.) Europe? Very few now. And europe has had it's share of tyrants, that's for sure.

Citizens owning their own arms is like a fleet-in-being. That is the mear presence inhibits those who would force the populance to do anything. The only way to see if they prevent governments from becoming tyranical is not if they had civil wars or coups, but if they have lived in peace inside their boarders for many a year.

The U.S. has been here for well over 200 plus years. We had one civil war inside out boarders over a 150 years ago. We have lived in peace (well pretty much peace) since then. Canada, while more restrictive than the US in civilian ownership, still has widespread ownership of guns and they are at peace. Switzerland is another one. They have been at peace for something like 400 years!

So I feel there is proof it does help.

Deaf

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I think it could be a deterrent to a government run amok only if the armed citizenry had access to the basic armaments of an Infantry squad. That means m-16's, M249 SAWs, and appropriate body armor. As it stands now, there are too few owning those implements to put up a resistance to tyranny.

 

[KenpoTex]

As it stands now, there are too few owning those implements to put up a resistance to tyranny.

Ever read Unintended Consequences? :ultracool

 

[Thesemindz]

Ever read Unintended Consequences? :ultracool

An excellent book, with just enough sex and violence to cover the fact that it is basically political essay.


-Rob

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Ever read Unintended Consequences? :ultracool

Barely. Interesting book if you can get past the horrible foreshadowing.

 

[searcher]

Jeff-the best chance we have, if/when it happens, is that many in the military will stand by us and defect WITH their armament. While we stand our ground with what we have. I am just happy that I have enough training on guerilla tactics and CT to make a stand for 5 or 10 minutes.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Short answer--Yes.

 

[MA-Caver]

Jeff-the best chance we have, if/when it happens, is that many in the military will stand by us and defect WITH their armament. While we stand our ground with what we have. I am just happy that I have enough training on guerilla tactics and CT to make a stand for 5 or 10 minutes.

I wonder. About that... if our own military would in fact turn on their own when they are given orders to subdue even kill American citizens. It is hoped that National Guardsmen who are not full time military would retain as much of their citizen thinking to step back and say "hey, no, this is NOT right what we've been asked to do." Yet they are the ones called in to enforce Martial Law when it's been required... however temporary. They are the ones who are given the right to shoot looters (rightly so but still firing upon relatively unarmed Americans).
Yet with gun laws becoming stricter by the month/year it seems this elimination of potential opposition of possible tyranny is being done in dribs and drabs rather than all at once like past dictatorships.
It's been said that people should not fear their government but governments should fear it's people.
Our founding fathers made it a point to ensure our right to bear arms because they've faced this situation before and were sure enough of history to know that it could happen again.
Still, anti-gun folks are seemingly providing blind trust to our government(s) that it will not happen. Most pro-gun folks probably don't own guns in fear of the government, they own them in fear of their personal safety being violated. Yet, wouldn't that be the case should it be so ordered that all firearms be confiscated a few years from now?
How many will go into hiding and how foolish would that be given our present technology and ability to be so target specific that there is literally no place to hide?
In 1945 it could be a sure bet that if the German citizenship were not deprived of their own personal firearms that the fall of Berlin would've taken a higher toll of the invading Russian army and over a longer period of time. Such would be the same to any invading military to the U.S. today because of our beloved 4th amendment. I'm not guessing victory or anything like that but a definite demoralization of any invading troops.
I wonder how tempting of a target would the U.S. be should this wholesale confiscation of weaponry from the citizenship occur?
Yet usually as history has shown, countries are destroyed first from within and then from without. When that does happen, IMO it's a good idea for the average citizen to be so armed.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I wonder. About that... if our own military would in fact turn on their own when they are given orders to subdue even kill American citizens. It is hoped that National Guardsmen who are not full time military would retain as much of their citizen thinking to step back and say "hey, no, this is NOT right what we've been asked to do." Yet they are the ones called in to enforce Martial Law when it's been required... however temporary. They are the ones who are given the right to shoot looters (rightly so but still firing upon relatively unarmed Americans).
Yet with gun laws becoming stricter by the month/year it seems this elimination of potential opposition of possible tyranny is being done in dribs and drabs rather than all at once like past dictatorships.
It's been said that people should not fear their government but governments should fear it's people.
Our founding fathers made it a point to ensure our right to bear arms because they've faced this situation before and were sure enough of history to know that it could happen again.
Still, anti-gun folks are seemingly providing blind trust to our government(s) that it will not happen. Most pro-gun folks probably don't own guns in fear of the government, they own them in fear of their personal safety being violated. Yet, wouldn't that be the case should it be so ordered that all firearms be confiscated a few years from now?
How many will go into hiding and how foolish would that be given our present technology and ability to be so target specific that there is literally no place to hide?
In 1945 it could be a sure bet that if the German citizenship were not deprived of their own personal firearms that the fall of Berlin would've taken a higher toll of the invading Russian army and over a longer period of time. Such would be the same to any invading military to the U.S. today because of our beloved 4th amendment. I'm not guessing victory or anything like that but a definite demoralization of any invading troops.
I wonder how tempting of a target would the U.S. be should this wholesale confiscation of weaponry from the citizenship occur?
Yet usually as history has shown, countries are destroyed first from within and then from without. When that does happen, IMO it's a good idea for the average citizen to be so armed.

You can tell me not to pack/
But all I'm sayin' back/When ya tell me not to pack is NO! (NO!) nono-nono-noooooooo..................

 

[Carol]

You can tell me not to pack/
But all I'm sayin' back/When ya tell me not to pack is NO! (NO!) nono-nono-noooooooo..................

:rofl:

So, if you ask me why I like the way I'm packin...
There's only one thing I can say to you....I WANNA PACK!!

 

[chinto]

NO QUESTION THAT THE ANSWER IS YES! study history, any culture you wish, and you will find that the first thing they do to take liberty from the people is disarm them.

historical fact. there is a reason why the founding fathers of the United States of America have inserted the 2nd amendment to the constitution! that is to make sure that the people would have the means to resist tyrants and the unlawful taking of their rights!

 

[MA-Caver]

NO QUESTION THAT THE ANSWER IS YES! study history, any culture you wish, and you will find that the first thing they do to take liberty from the people is disarm them.

historical fact. there is a reason why the founding fathers of the United States of America have inserted the 2nd amendment to the constitution! that is to make sure that the people would have the means to resist tyrants and the unlawful taking of their rights!

Two things:
1. Chinto... (gently speaking) calm down ... this is a discussion and caps are tantamount to shouting which takes it out of the realm of civil discourse. Suggest using bold or italics or even underlines to empathize a point. :asian:
Admittedly however I've been known to use CAPS myself from time to time.

2. I stand corrected that it's the second amendment not the fourth that we're talking here. (too late to edit )

 

[Josh Oakley]

I wonder. About that... if our own military would in fact turn on their own when they are given orders to subdue even kill American citizens. It is hoped that National Guardsmen who are not full time military would retain as much of their citizen thinking to step back and say "hey, no, this is NOT right what we've been asked to do." Yet they are the ones called in to enforce Martial Law when it's been required... however temporary.

I hope as well, But the Kent State Massacre still makes me doubt. Those were guardsmen as well.


Frankly, I think that an armed citizenry is an effective deterrent if and only if said citizenry is willing to protect their freedom at any cost. With the level of destructive power currently wielded, an actual revolution would be tough to pull off, if indeed it can be accomplisher. Put the purpose of an armed citizenry is about the policy of mutually assured destruction.

If the people are willing to fight back, the government will have to fight harder or give in. If the government fights harder, and the people do not give in, the the government must fight harder still. You can see how this goes. At some point, the government (itself being made of people) won't be able to continue morally, or will keep fighting and wipe out the populace, effectively wiping out the government for lack of funds, resources, and manpower.

One thing I'd like to point out is that this can be accomplished without guns. Ghandi proved it. But it requires an incredible amount of unity to the point where people are willing to die in droves for the cause. Then it becomes a war of attrition. It canbe done without guns, but it is incredibly inefficient.

Any revolution is going to involve bloodshed. An armed society that is unified not only willing to die but fight as well will achieve the same results with a lower body count. There are only so many members of government. Every member of government could be worth 100, 1000, or even 10,000 members of the general people. Let's say I had a population of 100,000,000 people. And futher, we'll say the government, from leader to lowly clerk was 1,000,000 people. For every 100 people the government killed, the people would need to kill 1 person to stay even, proportionally. Let's say this government, in order to scare the people, dropped a bomb on a town of 10,000 people, the people could revolt and kill 101 key members of government and gain a proportional advantage (not to mention, depending on the chosen key members, this could wipe out the government's leadership and cripple it). The revolution could end with a very low body count.

Frankly, the government has the least hassle if a) the people can't fight back, or b) the people don't feel a need to. With an armed citizenry, it now is in the governments best interest to avoid tyranny.


Because of Mutually Assured Destruction, I absolutely believe an armed citizenry really does prevent governmental tyranny, provided that the citizenry is willing to both fight and die for their cause.

 

[KenpoTex]

... provided that the citizenry is willing to both fight and die for their cause.

that's the kicker...most people don't care about anything as long as they're eating good and the football game starts on time (bread and circuses?...). They're certainly not going to fight or die for anything as "abstract" as liberty.

 

[Josh Oakley]

that's the kicker...most people don't care about anything as long as they're eating good and the football game starts on time (bread and circuses?...). They're certainly not going to fight or die for anything as "abstract" as liberty.

This is all hypothetical. In reality, it really doesn't take that much to start a riot

 

[Thesemindz]

If the people are willing to fight back, the government will have to fight harder or give in. If the government fights harder, and the people do not give in, the the government must fight harder still. You can see how this goes. At some point, the government (itself being made of people) won't be able to continue morally, or will keep fighting and wipe out the populace, effectively wiping out the government for lack of funds, resources, and manpower...

One thing I'd like to point out is that this can be accomplished without guns. Ghandi proved it. But it requires an incredible amount of unity to the point where people are willing to die in droves for the cause. Then it becomes a war of attrition. It canbe done without guns, but it is incredibly inefficient...

I absolutely believe an armed citizenry really does prevent governmental tyranny, provided that the citizenry is willing to both fight and die for their cause.

I've had this discussion with some friends of mine. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, which basically means I want a world of voluntary cooperation for mutual gain, free from state oppression.

Ultimately, I believe society will evolve to that place. I think the advent of new technologies and increased access to knowledge and learning will eventually make systems of central authority untenable. I think this could involve a violent revolution, but doesn't necessarily need to.

Instead it could be a revolution of ideas. As the same piece of technology that accesses my television, and my movies, and my internet, and my email, and my phone service, and my video communications becomes smaller and more transportable individuals will have more and more access to the collected thoughts of people all over the world.

At the same time, central governments will find it more and more difficult to identify and regulate commerce and confederacy. The free trade of ideas is just as important as the free trade of goods and services. Eventually, the inability of states to control thought, coupled with the increased ability of the people to expand their perspectives and economic opportunities may be enough to put an end to all nation states, without a single shot being fired.

It is my belief that eventually man will evolve beyond oppressive central authority. It is my hope that we can do that without violence. It is my dream to see it before I die.


-Rob

 

[Thesemindz]

This is all hypothetical. In reality, it really doesn't take that much to start a riot

True. All it takes is one gnarly breast exposed during a half time show.


-Rob