As many of you know, I'm from Canada. We have a pretty different attitude to guns up here, and I must say that American gun culture has always kind of puzzled me. To me, one no more had a right to a gun than one did to a car.
Well, my mind has changed. Changed to the point where I see gun ownership as being a slightly qualified but universal global human right. A month ago in Yalta, Freedom & The Future, I wrote:
"Frankly, if "stopping... societies from becoming the homicidal hells Mr. Bush described in his Latvia speech" is our goal, I'm becoming more sympathetic to the Right to Bear Arms as a universal human right on par with freedom of speech and religion. U.S. Secretary of State Condi Rice's personal experience as a child in Birmingham [Alabama] adds an interesting dimension; I hope she talks about this abroad."
This week, I took the last step. You can thank Robert Mugabe, too, because it was his campaign to starve his political/tribal opponents and Pol-Pot style "ruralization" effort (200,000 left homeless recently in a population of 12.6 million) that finally convinced me. Here's the crux, the argument before which all other arguments pale into insignificance:
The Right to Bear Arms is the only reliable way to prevent genocide in the modern world.
And Zimbabwe is the poster child for that proposition. So let's start with what's going on:
Not only is Mugabe in the middle of a "ruralization" program with clear echoes of the Cambodian genocide, the Washington Post reports that the country's granaries are nearly empty. That means starvation.
"Unless there's food aid," you say.
No. It means starvation. Period. I give you The Daily Telegraph:
"Millions of people are going hungry not, as Mr Mugabe's government claims, because of poor rains but as a direct result of its policy of denying food to opposition supporters and enriching its loyalists....
...An investigation by The Telegraph found that control of the Grain Marketing Board (GMB), Zimbabwe's state-owned monopoly supplier of commercial maize, was passed this year to one of Mr Mugabe's most loyal henchmen, Air Marshal Perence Shiri, an alleged war criminal.... The organisation, which is meant to supply maize at subsidised prices to all Zimbabweans, has instead been selling maize only to supporters of the ruling Zanu-PF party. Backers of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change went hungry.
Worse still was the country's Food For Work programme. Thousands of opposition supporters would provide 15 days' labour only to be told at the end there was no GMB food for them."
But surely we can set up parallel channels for aid groups? Not really. Back to The Telegraph:
"The GMB is so corrupt and politicised that aid groups shipping food into Zimbabwe are being forced to set up their own expensive parallel storage and distribution facilities, rather than using those of the GMB.... There is also evidence that the Zimbabwean government is deliberately blocking the work of these international aid groups....
A warehouse of supplies organised by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace was blockaded for three months by Zanu-PF militants and an attempt to increase the flow of humanitarian supplies by the World Food Programme (WFP) has also been blocked. The WFP relies on recognised agencies to do the final distribution on the ground and aid sources said the mere presence of a British charity, Save the Children (UK), on a list of possible distributors is hindering expansion.
Aid groups are routinely criticised in the state-owned media in Zimbabwe, accused of being tools of the "imperialist, colonialist West".
Zimbabwean Pundit has more along these lines, and Norm Geras (a leftyblogger who has been covering Zimbabwe for a long time) offers Snapshots from the Brink. There is every reason to expect that, just like Ethiopia in the 1980s (and see pictures and description here), aid will continue to be blocked and diverted to Shona tribal areas that support Zimbabwe's murderous regime. Or just confiscated once the aid workers go away.
And PubliusPundit notes that peaceful measures are fizsling, even as reports of "roundups and holding camps" are filtering out from the opposition.
Getting the picture? Even putting aside one's understandable suspicion of this next source's overall judgement, his description from the Telegraph rings true to common sense:
"What we are seeing is nothing but humanitarian torture," an aid worker said. "It takes three months to die of starvation and this is a torture every bit as bad as beating someone with barbed wire or hanging them from handcuffs."
Um, ever studied what dying of starvation actually involves, dude? It's just a little bit worse than hanging from handcuffs - and there's nothing humanitarian about it.
Anyway, the eternal cluelessness of NGO types isn't the issue here. The point is simply this...
Read those reports again - and tell me exactly how sending aid is going to do anything other than make the donors complicit in Mugabe's tribal-political genocide. Because all it's going to do is ensure that those carrying it out are well fed.
This is the collaboration that dares to wear compassion's mask in our culture today. It is NOT the answer. To anything.
Nor will there be salvation from afar. Perry deHavilland writes from London:
"And where are the marchers in the west? Where are the protesters calling for justice in Zimbabwe? Where is the outrage from those tireless tribunes of the Third World, the UN? Why can I not hear the snarls of fury from the alphabet soup of NGOs? What of the legions of Guardian readers finding out about all this? What are they going to call for? Amnesty International is getting a lot of (bad) publicity from having called Guantanamo Bay 'a gulag' whilst now admitting they do not actually know what is happening there, yet why are they not straining every fibre of their being in opposition to this African horror?"
Surely you jest, Perry. Comrade Mugabe is an anti-colonialist hero to many of them. He got his lifetime pass long ago - and he's been using it for a very long time. Or did you miss the massacres of thousands and reign of terror during the 1980s?
Besides, lighten up! Mass forced starvations aren't just a catastrophe, they're an important neo-Marxist tradition! The poor guy is just trying to be part of the club with his comrades in Russia, North Korea, North Vietnam, China, Ethiopia, and Cambodia. Really, it's all just a differently-relevant culture with its own distinct narratives to cherish as it joins the global rainbow struggle for social justice and equality against the global patriarchical capitalist henegmony. Anyway, don't you know the evil U.S. regime is killing Iraqi babies and serving them at White House banquets with hoisin sauce?
In fairness, some of the liberal commeners here over the last year or so appear to be happy to put a bullet or three in Mugabe. They just haven't thought through the implications of their European idols' inaction for the entire premise of their foreign policy approach. If not the USA, who will bell the cat? Overthrow and/or partition is actually an operation that could be executed with just a few thousand troops, as long air and naval support was there. Heck, Italy and Spain (who both have small carriers and harrier jets) could probably get together and do it all themselves.
Why don't they? Why haven't they even threatened to intervene in Zimbabwe, let alone tried? Why have President Bush's approaches to European allies to take a role on the ground in Sudan been left unanswered as Darfur's people are killed?
And if they won't act in these situations, or even make the attempt, why should we believe in [a] any role for Europe as moral arbiters of much of anything (experience at perpetrating genocide isn't a qualification, mes amis); or [b] their ability and/or willingness to be useful military allies in a serious situation.
Pass another shrimp Gerhard, and let's toast our peaceful selves as we hold a conference for the victims. Afterward. Meanwhile, we'll try not to think about the inconvenient fact that far more citizens died at the hands of their governments last century than ever died in its wars (about 169M to 36M). Or what we might do about that outside the walls of this nice hotel.
Belmont Club is more optimistic, and thinks Mugabe will "overreach":
"One way or the other, what is nearly certain is that conditions will continue to worsen. The second probability is that Mugabe will not react gently to Stay Away. He has gotten away with so much, so often from the spineless "International Community" -- you know the one that provides unparalleled "legitimacy" -- that he will odds-on overdo his response. What then? I think Professor Stanford Mukasa, a Zimbabwean teaching journalism at a US college had it right when he said that Zimbabweans could not expect the cavalry to ride over the hill, massacre or no."
Still, he becomes more hopeful when he notes that unlike the Europeans, President Bush is looking for regional powers who might be willing to intervene with American air and logistical support, in order to prevent genocide. South Africa is a natural choice, in his mind. It has the geography, and the military capability too.
Unfortunately, Belmont Club is dead wrong.
First, because Comrade Mugabe is still a hero to many in South Africa's ANC. Second, because South Africa knows, as all African countries know, that deposing Mugabe probably means partition. Should Zimbabwe become the next Yugoslavia, the legitimacy of almost every African border and government would immediately be called into question. Better by far that Zimbabweans should suffer genocide, which would disturb the perks and bank accounts of Africa's leaders hardly at all. At least Perry was realistic about that part:
"But of course the South African ANC government, far from being a possible solution to the rapidly deteriorating situation across the border, is aiding and abetting in the Cambodia-ization of Zimbabwe. I look forward to Saint Nelson Mandela taking a loud, public and sustained stand against Mugabe's madness. Yeah, right.
If Tony Blair was serious about doing something about poverty in Africa, he would be sending guns to the MDC and to anyone else who is willing to resist and threatening to have some gentlemen from Hereford put a .338 hole between Mugabe's eyes unless things change radically. What a pity Zimbabwe does not have oil or maybe more people would give a damn what is happening there."
"Perry is quite right, in that South Africa, as well as Zimbabwe�s other neighbors, should be taking the lead here. He is a bit wrong on the oil issue though; Sudan has oil, and no-one seems to give a damn there either."
Good point. Perry isn't giving up, though - and here's where he hit me:
"Clearly the only chance for the people of Zimbabwe is for someone, anyone, to help them to rise up and meet violence with violence. They do not need aid, they need guns and ammunition so that supporters of the MDC can start shooting at anyone associated with ZANU-PF or the 'security' services. Time for Mugabe's swaggering police thugs to be met with a hail of gunfire rather than terrified sobbing."
I think Perry is right. More to the point, I think there's a reason that he's right in ways that go beyond just Zimbabwe.
Which brings us to Chester's Zimbabwe and the Kitty Genovese Incident. The title is derived from Phillip Bobbitt's book "The shield of Achilles," which has one chapter called "The Kitty Genovese Incident and the War in Bosnia." If you don't know who Kitty Genovese was, don't worry - his post explains. This is the key, from Bobbitt:
To summarize, we can say that there are five distinct stages through which the bystander must successively pass before effective action can be taken: (1) Notice: he must become aware that some unusual occurrence is taking place; (2) Recognition: he must be able to assess the event and define it as an emergency; (3) Decision: he must then decide that something must be done, that is, he must find a convincing reason for action to be taken; (4) Assignment: the bystander must then assign some person, himself or another, or some institution to be responsible for action; he must answer the question, "who should act in these circumstances?" (5) Implementation: having decided what action should be taken, he must then see that it is actually done. If at any stage in this sequence, a crucial ambiguity is introduced, then the whole process must begin again. The presence of ambiguity in urban life, not the callousness of urban dwellers, is precisely what makes emergency intervention in cities so problematic...
In international politics, the problems multiply. Worry about commitment traps. Situations that don't engage the bystander's interests, even to the level of the citizen bystander who understands that the duty of mutual protection is the first requirement of shared citizenship. Not to mention the danger of active opposition from others who perceive the situation to be very much in their interests. Or dysfunctional frameworks for action that nearly guarantee failure, as I explained in Congo: the Roots - And the Trap.
The effect is predictable, as is the nearly-unblemished failure of the so-called "international community" over the last 30 years. As Bobbitt notes:
So it was with the horrifying events of the three years 1991-1994 in the former state of Yugoslavia: fascinated, frightened, appalled, the civilized world was anything but apathetic. And yet, like Kitty Genovese's murderer, the killers in Bosnia returned again and again, once the threat of outside intervention dissipated, leaving the rest of us as anguished bystanders.
Cambodia, Uganda, Sudan, Rwanda... the list goes on more or less ad infinitum. When the world wasn't standing by, the U.N. was busy helping the murderers. As A.L.'s post about U.N. doctor Andrew Thomson's experiences noted: "If You See Blue Helmets, Run!" Actually, the whole quote from Thomson is even more instructive:
"Thomson, who spent two years pulling bodies out of mass graves in Rwanda and the Bosnian town of Srebrenica - corpses of people who had sought safety with the U.N. - concludes: "If blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeepers show up in your town or village and offer to protect you, run. Or else get weapons. Your lives are worth so much less than theirs."
Emphasis mine.
Or Else Get Weapons: The Right to Bear Arms
There's another quote in Chester's post from Bobbitt. I'm going to suggest that its real implications aren't the ones Chester is thinking of as he imagines a rescue that in reality, will never come:
"Time and again, numbers have been overcome by courage and resolution. Sudden changes in a situation, so startling as to appear miraculous, have frequently been brought about by the action of small parties. There is an excellent reason for this.
The trials of battle are severe; troops are strained to the breaking point. At the crisis, any small incident may prove enough to turn the tide one way or the other. The enemy invariably has difficulties of which we are ignorant; to us, his situation may appear favorable while to him it may seem desperate. Only a slight extra effort on our part may be decisive...
It is not the physical loss inflicted by the smaller force, although this may be appreciable, but the moral effect, which is decisive."
Notice. Recognition. Decision. Assignment. Implementation. Courage and resolution. The moral effect. And of course, countervailing force. That is what is required to stop genocide.
Are we more likely to find it among those marked for death and persecution, as they begin to realize their fate? In a global hyperpower that will inevitably have competing and compelling responsibilities besides our 21st century "problem from hell"? Or in a fraudulent "world community" that abets mass hatred (Durban), stands by or collaborates with murderers (Rwanda, Srebrenica), allows existing perpertrators of genocide to represent it on Human Rights (UNHRC), and sees world crises mostly as opportunities to fatten their budgets and rack up air miles (tsunami relief, the Toyota Taliban generally).
A look at the U.N.'s record, and indeed that of the world over the last 30 years, answers that question decisively.
I'll leave the last words to this radio speech by Tendai Biti, an MDC member of parliament. Via Belmont Club:
"I can't tell you - and the hundreds of Central Intelligence Organisation officers who I know are listening to me right now - about who is going to provide the leadership, who is going to do what, and so forth - but what I can guarantee you is that the anger is overflowing in the veins of the average Zimbabweans. They will defend themselves. The time for smiling at fascism is over."
Not in Africa, in the U.N., or among the West's liberal-left New Class and NGO set. But perhaps, just perhaps, in Zimbabwe. Facing an armed populace, the rag-tag gangs of thugs that have characterized genocide's recent history are outmatched - and even the armed forces of the state discover that orderly liquidation of their victims turns into a formidable proposition.
Arm Zimbabwe's opposition. Now. Heck, take a leaf from Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, and send HEAPs (Holocaust Education and Avoidance Pods). Then tell the world (and especially our hypocritical Euro "friends") why.
The Right to Bear Arms. It's not just for Americans any more.
UPDATES:
- JUNE 30/05: Mugabe undertakes a major effort to remove the remaining guns from his populace, thus helping to prove my point.
- Lots of good essays etc. via the Trackbacks. For instance...
- Wallo World disagrees, but does so by making a coherent argument. I applaud that, but I do disagree and left a few comments to that effect. Feel free to join in - why should all the fun be confined to this place?
- Rand Simberg's piece covers a legal analysis and study examining the issue of past genocides, armed vs. unarmed populaces, and legal implications.
- Rev. Donald Sensing (formely Maj. Donald Sensing) writes a linked post in which he reminded me of his essay: "Civilization, Violence, Sovereignty and the Second Amendment," as well as Jacques Ellul's "Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective" (which is very contrary to the Jewish perspective, I might add).
- Eric Raymond of open source software fame has an essay wherein he argues that the bearing of arms also teaches moral responsibility and ideas like: "It all comes down to you." Never count on being able to undo your choices." The universe doesn't care about motives." Right choices are possible, and the ordinary judgement of ordinary (wo)men is sufficient to make them." Provocative and well-written.
Excellent post, Joe. Bravo. P.J. O'Rourke made much the same point about famine ALWAYS being a political tool in "All the Trouble in the World". A really, really good book, one of the best I've read on politics and economics. Funny as hell too.
The Founders had excellent reasons for every word they wrote, including the Second Amendment. Tyranny has been a way of life for most governments throughout the world for an eternity. An armed populace goes a long way toward preventing tyranny.
Most on the Left refuse to recognize Joe's points. They worry about civil war and shooting in the streets. OK, so who in that position wouldn't rather be armed and have a fighting chance to survive, rather than be starved to death?
BTW, you have a "link overrun" at the "Chester's post link.
It is a coincidence that I am viewing the 1966 movie “Cast a Giant Shadow” regarding the heroic Mickey Marcus. The British government also tried to impose gun control on the Jews of Palestine. Thankfully, they violated this stupid prohibition---or the state of Israel would have never have been brought into existence. Please note that this Kirk Douglas film was made 39 years ago. It was the very last major Hollywood production which glorified Israel. Isn’t that strange?
Mugabe has long been a hero to the leftist liberationist movements in africa and elsewhere. You cannot expect leftists to turn against Mugabe anymore than they would accept the truth about Che, Mao, or Fidel.
I agree with you that I would have rather seen running gunbattles in Rwanda rather than machete massacres of Tutsis by Hutus. In Zimbabwe Mugabe's Shona tribe is favored over traditional enemy tribes. Growing out of tribalism may take africa another few centuries.
Great post, but what an incredibly stupid and uninformed 3rd sentence in the opening paragraph, even for a Canadian (and I'm one now living the US):
"To me, one no more had a right to a gun than one did to a car."
Joe, there is NO constitutional right to own cars. Please see the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
Kyle
"Ruralization", my ass. It's Year Zero.
And we're not doing a damn thing to stop it.
Kyle (#4):
Um, Joe's point about how his thinking has evolved was clearly stated. You might want to re-read the post's first paragraph.
I'm less sanguine about the benefits of Guns-For-All, especially in the absence of a civil society. See Mogadishu, 1992, and--in some ways--Saddam's 2003 Warehouse Clearance Giveaway Sale.
But, per Joe and Armed Liberal, reality isn't very accomodating to the peaceful dreams I have in common with our NGO friends. If it were my family in Harare today, faced with Mugabe's reprise of Year Zero--I'd prefer the AK-47 to a mess of pottage (or bowl of WFP porridge).
Absolutely brilliant, Joe. An armed populace has always been the best defense against tyranny.
I would like to add about South Africa. Mbeki is actually rather sympathetic to Mugabe's cause, sick as that may be. He is something of a Marxist himself and has been looking to coalition with the communists in SA so that he can run for re-election under the new party.
He is also supporting the same kind of "land reform" program, slow-motion, that Mugabe did. Just the week, the first forced government land-sale went underway. The owner asked for 10. The government made him sell at 1.7. Watch out, that country is slowly slipping away as well.
The left dont want the people to have guns because a defensless population makes typical leftist genocide pogrom far easier to impliment.
Guns alone isnt enough however, a freedom culture is just as important, if guns was the be-all end-all,, then Afganistan would have been freedoms paradise.
The principle of the rights of the single individual, his right to his freedom from predation, is just as important as the right to the tools of revolt
Which is why the left attack individualist culture as well as disarm the population.
Others have pointed at the change in attitude between armed citizens, and unarmed subjects.
Its a different mentality.. to Wit:
The left ... Death = good, More the better.
To Wit:
Mugbe is a leftist .. he is doing what leftist do.. Kofi and Mandella are no different,, I doubt they disaprove.
Pain and suffering abroad, Genocide, mass graves of kids, is only usefull when its a usefull tool to attack the West.
The difference with Kosovo was it lined up with their self hate and hate of the Christian Serbs (leaving out the consideration if it was morally justified or not)
The left shrug past mass graves when they are not creating them, unless there is a political atvantage ...
What do you think Chaves has planned for his 100,000 machine guns ?
So if the target of genocide are Christian blacks like in the Sudan, the left wont care .. thats a targeted for extermination group.
Saddam had his Socialist credentials, Mugbe's are even more authentic.
To the left, what is happening there "is a good thing", dont expect them to care about it much, any more than a mass grave of kids, found clutching their toys.
Fact is, africa is targeted for an engineered population reduction, part of Agenda 21.
So dont expect the UN to be upset, what is happening is policy for the top left globalist eliete.
Think Ted turner was joking ? Nope, and the circles he runs in agrees with him. He is just stating a rather main plank of their groupthink.
They are totaly convinced of this, if the population isnt exterminated, if they dont get the population reduction, the earth is doomed.
That is core to the top preists of the globalist left right now.
AMac (#6):
I see that his thinking has evolved, though it doesn't throughout the 1st paragraph. It evolves in the 2nd para., and that's great. (I'm assuming that big white space indicates paragraphing)
I didn't mean to sound overly strident in my first post, and if I did I'm sorry, but I tend to get excited when people don't seem to understand from whence we get our Rights.
I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Try poo-pooing the 1st, 4th, 13th, or any other Amendment to the Constitution. Claim ignorance of them as you suggest licensing (like a car) is okay for the 1st Amendment. After all, speech CAN be a very deadly thing. Not just theoretically, but actually. Perhaps we should license speech?
Those who want to protect the 2nd Amendment had better be as vociferous about it as would those who would defend any other Amendment!
Kyle, as a Canadian, I'm sure you're aware that guns are NOT a constitutional right in Canada. One literally has no more right to a gun here than one does to a car.
The same is true in most countries of the world.
I was comfortable with that before. I'm not comfortable with it anymore. For the reasons explained herein, it needs to change.
Hmmm...smacks of the Secret Admirers, Avi.
Have you been reading Cryptonomicon?
;-)
"Joe, there is NO constitutional right to own cars. Please see the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution"
But that does not seem to be the point Joe was making, if I understood him properly. The Second Amendment is of relevence only to people in the USA, it has no universal resonance elsewhere. The MDC in Zimbabwe need guns and ammunition and the Second Amendment of the US Constitution does not amount to a hill of beans there.
The whole point is that if rights are something given to you by a legal document, they can be taken away by a different legal document. But if people have a right to own guns because they have a right to defend themselves that is based on moral theories rather than granted by a political process, then the fact that right is enumerated by some document in the USA is great but really only of interests to people interested in legal issues. The truth of it is far greater than a mere constitution however.
Hence his closing line... The Right to Bear Arms. It's not just for Americans any more
Nice :-)
people have the right to overthrow tyranny.
If they need guns to overthrow tyranny, they have the moral right to guns.
If they need to counterfeit money or ID cards to overthrow tyranny, they have the moral right to counterfeit money or ID cards.
That does NOT mean that there is a moral right to counterfeit money or id cards in a democracy, (or in a non-democracy, for purposes other than overthrowing tyranny) It also does not mean that allowing counterfeiting of money or ID cards is good public policy in a democracy.
The same logic applies to guns.
Now you may well want guns cause they make you feel safer against street crime, or cause hunting with them is a deep part of your culture. Fine. Then say so. Dont hide your arguement under something irrelevant about Zimbabwe.
liberalhawk,
The right of self defense is more fundamental than the right of overthrowing tyrannies. Likewise for the right to protect youself from tyranny. Overthrowing and protecting are two different things.
Well, Joe, keep your metaphorical Marshal's .44 handy, as gun-control posts tend to spin out of control.
But I'm with you all the way. You have a right to life. Therefore, you must have the right to defend your life from those who would take it. And thus, you must have a right to the means to defend your life (plainly "Freedom of the Press" implies that government bans on paper and ink are wrong).
So...let's get cracking to defeat the UN's attempt to "control" small arms and make sure that only governments own them.
Anyway, Joe, if you're ever down Virginia way, you can shoot my AK-47.
you may well want guns cause they make you feel safer against street crime, or cause hunting with them is a deep part of your culture.
Um, Joe has made clear that this is NOT true for him. American gun culture (which focuses on hunting and street crime) "puzzles" him, apparently.
Besides, if you don't have a right to arms before tyranny starts, how will you get them after? You can bet the government isn't going to encourage the opposition to arm itself.
I'm somewhere between lberalhawk and lurker, myself.
And yes, Jinn, I've read Cryptonomicon twice now. For the initiated, see esp. the "Holocaust Education and Avoidance Pod (HEAP)" idea... which the USA should produce.
As the Hudson Institute notes in its book review:
"The right of self defense is more fundamental than the right of overthrowing tyrannies. "
If you believe that, fine, but its not Joe's arguement.
Joe,
A well written post! I linked in from Instapundit. You make clear the subtle intent of our forefathers here in the United States. The armed populace is there to insure that tyranny does not have the chance to arrive, much less thrive.
To some of the comments about other heavily armed countries (Afghanistan, Iraq's weapons giveaway), clearly the population of a nation understands who means them harm and who does not.
People do understand the power they wield by being armed and as such do not abuse it. American troops allowed Iraqi and Afghani civilians to retain their arms for self defense. The number of incidents where this was abused is trivially small.
Likewise, in states where people have the right to carry, crime rates actually declined. Fairly, the same can be said for areas where aggressive "quality of life" policiing (NYC) have taken place. But this speaks to the establishment of firm exercise of law and order.
Bravo!
David Koppel and you are on the very same wavelength.
Found a link to this at:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/005339.html#005339
"Is Resisting Genocide a Human Right?" by David Koppel
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/genocide.pdf
"Besides, if you don't have a right to arms before tyranny starts, how will you get them after? You can bet the government isn't going to encourage the opposition to arm itself."
Besides, if you dont have the right to counterfeiting equipment before tyranny starts, how will you get them after? etc, etc.
and why do you assume gun control means zero guns in society? Thats not the case in Canada, or in UK IIUC. You're assuming a total gun ban, which is the strawman the NRA brings out whenever someone calls for ANY gun control, whether its registration, limits on numbers anyone can purchase etc.
Joe Katzman (#10):
Right, I misunderstood you there. Since you had said that American gun culture puzzled you, I assumed you were aware of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
But a number of my Canadian friends have said the same thing to me, roughly along these lines: "You need a license to drive, why not a license to buy a gun?" I guess these kinds of questions reflect more on the public education system in Canada than anything else (not that PE is any better here). Anyone who is even high-school aware of the Constitution could not ask that question with any seriousness.
Kyle
Joe, I think we should all take Stepehnson's advice, and think subversive.
Isn't that what weblogging is all about?
Kile, denial of the right to drive (because a second class citizen cannot exist) exists only because the horse was the common mode of transport when it went to the HI court.
Thats not the first time the Government has twisted the court opinion.
For a long time, they used it to deny the 2nd amendment, the litigant was dead, and didnt show up in court,, so the court said,,, in the absence of evidence presented that a sawed off shotgun is a MILITARY weapon .....
The Embarrassing Second Amendment
Sanford Levinson, UT Austin School of Law, Yale Law Journal
What is protected, at the least, is the right to Military weapons that a solger would carry.
By the same token, the common mode of tranport now is not a horse, its the car,
Page here explains
Im not sure that would hold up however, as long as they issue the License on demand, and never refuse without cause, they are not Dening your right to travel.
But its just yet another right the control freaks took away that we need to recover, or rather, more firmly establish.
IN America, the very concept of "Privlege" is offensive to every concept of the document that is the law of the land.
We dont need to look to the Hell under the boot of Mugabe to consider ourselves fortunate, you can look right over the border at our northern neighbor.
Let us reflect on our blessings, and the gift of freedom we inherited.
and why look at Zimbabwe through the lens of gun control, but not Iraq? Where the tyrannical govt handed out guns en masse. Which were then used in an attempt to overthrow the budding democratic society???? And look at how many tyrannies have been overthrown WITHOUT mass gun ownership, from eastern europe in '89, to Ukraine, Georgia, etc. Ultimately if the entire people rise up, the security forces often prove very reluctant to kill everybody. Guns are necessary for SOME uprisings against tyranny. And they are useful for SOME uprisings against democracy. All in all no clearcut case for a public policy of gun ownership, apart from other considerations.
And why does the minimal likelihood of tyranny in a Western country trump considerations of public safety when it comes to guns, but not, say, the Patriot Act or issues of detention without trial?
I mean if you guys are really so concerned about Zimbabwe happening in America, I think youd have other priorities. (I by the way, am NOT hostile to the Patriot Act - but then I think the likelihood of a dictatorship in the US is seriously likely than an asteroid hitting the earth)
and why look at Zimbabwe through the lens of gun control, but not Iraq? Where the tyrannical govt handed out guns en masse. Which were then used in an attempt to overthrow the budding democratic society???? And look at how many tyrannies have been overthrown WITHOUT mass gun ownership, from eastern europe in '89, to Ukraine, Georgia, etc. Ultimately if the entire people rise up, the security forces often prove very reluctant to kill everybody. Guns are necessary for SOME uprisings against tyranny. And they are useful for SOME uprisings against democracy. All in all no clearcut case for a public policy of gun ownership, apart from other considerations.
And why does the minimal likelihood of tyranny in a Western country trump considerations of public safety when it comes to guns, but not, say, the Patriot Act or issues of detention without trial?
I mean if you guys are really so concerned about Zimbabwe happening in America, I think youd have other priorities. (I by the way, am NOT hostile to the Patriot Act - but then I think the likelihood of a dictatorship in the US is seriously likely than an asteroid hitting the earth)
"plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
It did. At a time when all males physically capable etc were called upon and trained together on a more or less regular basis. So it wasnt the paid National Guard, but it wasnt everybody living in todays anonymous society, either. I dont think it was just physical capabality. If you were called to the town green, and you were mentally unbalanced, or whatever, I dont think youd be long in the militia. There were social and cultural expectations in say, a New England town that simply dont exist in most of America anymore.
Congratulations on coming to see the light. If you cannot claim the right to continue existing... then any other human right becomes a hollow mockery at best. Now, I'm a settled Texan, so you can guess how I am abotu guns... but here's a real quote.
"You don't have to send troops. We know where the bosses live, up on the hill in their fancy houses. We just don't have any rifles."
Who said it?
My Serbian friend, in reference to Milosevic.
Liberalhawk,
If by "counterfeiting equipment" you mean printing presses, computers, and copy machines, I'd be willing (on a less busy day) to make the case that you do, in fact, have a moral right to those things, based on their usefulness in coordinating both peaceful dissent and violent resistance.
But I'd also distinguish, if necessary, between things that are genuinely useful in defeating tyranny (say, guns and laser printers) and those whose usefulness is quite limited (say, a machine for making ID badges).
Also, if we're talking about guns which are useful for preventing genocide, we aren't talking about beautifully engraved British doubles loaded with #8 shot, OK? Brits have few if any (legal) guns left which are useful for mortal combat. And of course, tyranny rarely arrives full-blown overnight; in countries with fairly strict gun control, a government bent on tyranny would of course ramp it up a few notches such that few guns would remain afterward.
liberalhawk
61 Million people died for their freedom, it wasnt bloodless, and I find holocaust denial offensive.
For you to offer as the alternative "they will get tired of stacking our skulls some day" .. is frankly ... offensive ...
"People do understand the power they wield by being armed and as such do not abuse it. American troops allowed Iraqi and Afghani civilians to retain their arms for self defense. The number of incidents where this was abused is trivially small. "
In fact the rate of crime in Iraq is massive. The US allowed small arms cause it would have been politically impossible not to. And a large minority of Iraqis decided democracy was the main threat. and it was those who were most trained and organized to use arms. Weve paid with over a thousand American dead for that.
liberalhawk
Wrong,, and a lie. (that you are repeating)
And why does the minimal likelihood of tyranny in a Western country trump considerations of public safety when it comes to guns, but not, say, the Patriot Act or issues of detention without trial?
Well, largely because many of us on the pro-gun side think that public safety is enhanced by widespread gun ownership. I've never committed a crime worse than an illegal left turn; I never will. So my guns are not an issue for public safety unless a criminal threatens me or my family, at which point they become a net positive for public safety.
Any gun control which impairs my right to own guns will be a net negative for public safety. Now, maybe I'm some kind of unique, bizarre, and atypical gun owner. But I'm inclined to doubt that. And I'm inclined to resent those who reverse the presumtion of innocence and preventively take my guns "without trial," as you put it.
Furthermore, there are those of us who think that the likelihood of tyranny is minimal in the US (I'm no sure about "Western countries" generally) is partly a result of gun ownership. You have a minimal liklihood of getting run over by a train, but that isn't an argument for removing the signals at railroad grade crossings which help to keep that likelihood low.
liberalhawk: Are you saying that a human right should only be 'allowed' to be exercised if it appears that it's in danger?
Do you only put on your seatbelt if you EXPECT to get in a wreck?
A tradition of widespread citizen firearms ownership in any of the aforementioned countries would have prevented the genocides from ever happening.
"This week, I took the last step."
So, what kind did you buy?
"liberalhawk
61 Million people died for their freedom, it wasnt bloodless, and I find holocaust denial offensive.
For you to offer as the alternative "they will get tired of stacking our skulls some day" .. is frankly ... offensive ..."
where did I say that.
And BTW, my greatgrandfather was murdered by Nazis outside his town in Poland in 1943. Dont you DARE call he a holocaust denier.
"And of course, tyranny rarely arrives full-blown overnight; in countries with fairly strict gun control, a government bent on tyranny would of course ramp it up a few notches such that few guns would remain afterward."
If it happens gradually, there are many opportunities to stop it peacefully, by protest, by defense of rights, by actions in court, etc. I see plenty of examples of budding tyrannies stopped by lawyers, reporters, etc (all those despised groups) but few stopped by widespread gun ownership.
"Well, largely because many of us on the pro-gun side think that public safety is enhanced by widespread gun ownership"
But thats not Joes argument. If you think guns enhance public safety, fine. Make your arguement. Thats got nothing to do with Zimbabwe.
Well, few people think we should go to the barricades without exhausting peaceful remedies first. And of course that's exactly why I put laser printers next to guns as useful anti-tyranny implements. But lawyers haven't stopped Mugabe, have they? So a backstop would be nice.
And of course in most cases, by the time it's worth shooting, the government has already taken all the guns (or limited their possession to the the politically reliable). That doesn't mean they aren't useful; rather, it's proof that they are all too useful and that tyrants recognize this.
Joe mentions Rwanda.
IIUC the mass of the people WERE armed in Rwanda. With machetes. Unfortunately the majority of the people were manipulated by and followed the genocidal govt. I dont know that there even was any gun control in Rwanda - if the tutsi had been better armed, likely so would the genocidaires. widespread gun ownership would NOT have stopped genocide in Rwanda.