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 disarming of citizens has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression. Joel Barlow, Advice to the Privileged Orders, 1793

As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks. -- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.

Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power. -- Yoshimi Ishikawa

The left ... Death = good, More the better.

To Wit:

Respected environmentalist, Dr. LaMont Cole, at Yale University said that "To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world overpopulation problem."

Dr. Van den Bosch of the University of California criticized those of us who have concern for "all those little brown people in poor countries."

Dr. Charles Wurster, a major opponent of DDT, was once asked about the possibility that banning DDT would necessitate use of far more toxic and dangerous pesticides. Said he: "So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any."

Liberal icon Ted Turner has his own assessment of what the world's population should be: "A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95 percent decline from present levels, would be ideal."

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:

"...For instance, the Jewish entrepreneurial leader of the Silicon Valley contingent is obsessed with the prevention of genocide. Accordingly, he and some other savvy techies develop a downloadable plan for making guns out of common household items. With this information, members of groups in danger of extreme repression are able quickly to ensure that their tormentors meet with more than token resistance. In another section of the book, Stephenson describes a new cryptographic system based on the use of ordinary playing cards. Although the puzzle is an interesting plot device, keeping the reader involved as it is deciphered, the author includes detailed instructions on the methodology of the system so that the reader can also use it in the real world. In other words, Stephenson apparently intends to do more than merely entertain. In his book In the Beginning was the Command Line (1999), Stephenson drove this point home:"

"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

McReynolds noted further that "the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators [all] [s]how plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

It is difficult to read Miller as rendering the Second Amendment meaningless as a control on Congress. Ironically, MIller can be read to support some of the most extreme anti-gun control arguments, e.g., that the individual citizen has a right to keep and bear bazookas, rocket launchers, and other armaments that are clearly relevant to modern warfare, including, of course, assault weapons.

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

The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day.

Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right.

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.

thats not Joes argument

I'll let Joe speak for himself, but it seems to me it isn't crazy to think that increased street crime in Zimbabwe would kill fewer people than a deliberate program of starvation.

Maybe because you are an Anglo-Canadian and I am a French-Canadian-we have a difference of opinion-but here goes....

Why lately is the focus so much on Mugabe and Zimbabwe on American and English blogs? The English blogs I get....but it seems somehow they are more afronted by Mugabe and their old colony Zimbabwe than they are the equally gross mess of their old colonial area North and Southern Sudan. As a French Canadian and strategically I am more concerned with Central Africa and countries within the continent that lie closer to the Middle Eastern conflict.

Look there are problems in Eritrea,The Congo, Rwanda, heck throw in Zaire, Chad, Somalia, Dijoubuti,Sudan and I am sure I am overlooking some...

But for once it would be nice to see ANY other country than the US take the lead on something-[sheesh Canada can't even come up with the rest of their promised tsunami relief-or have they?]-ya I am American now...

But why has Zimbabwe started to be so prioritized over the Sudan for example?-I just don't get it.

Probably need to go research it.

The US allowed small arms cause it would have been politically impossible not to.

I'm not ready to tell the millions of law abiding Iraqis that their primary means of self defense is being taken away. Are you?

The cliche: "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns" is more true in Iraq than here.

Pretty soon, it may be illegal to own long pointy cooking knives in Britain. This is another logical step of your argument. Its logical conclusion will even be worse.

It's another debate as to whether a nanny state implemented via a tyranny of the majority is a transitory step to a more traditional form of tyranny.

Boy! English is not my strength-let me clarify that-

I need to probably go research it-hopefully you don't interpet that I meant you.

You can have my Henckels when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers

Holocaust denial is what you did.

As I said 61 Million murdered, and they did not get freedom untill the rulers grew tired of stacking skulls ....

There jad been all kinds of unarmed demostrations for 50 and 70 years ... they was all killed.

Not to mention those we saw hanging in the razor wire attempting to escape.

To say that their stuggle for freedom was bloodless is offensive ... its holocaust denial

They got their freedom when the butchers grew weary of stacking skulls .... let us not deny that the pile already had 61 million of them.

They stuggled for freedom as long as 70 years, to ignore those that gave their lives in that struggle is offensive.

"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."

Fine, but then whats the implication for public policy in a developed democracy - like, er, the US or Canada? (and BTW, I dont buy that ID badge making machines wouldnt be VERY useful to a democratic insurgency - IIUC the French resistance, etc made extensive use of ID counterfeiting)

The same conditions in Zimbabwe (a govt that came to power on the back of an armed guerilla movement, a racial history that could be used to delegitimize opposition, a single dominant party, tribal splits, a regional tendency to one party rule, low levels of literacy, etc) that made it hard for protests, lawsuits, etc to stop Mugabe ALSO meant that guns werent likely to be successful either, and that it was easy to alter any "democratic" gun laws. The notion that gun laws are a substitute for the work of building the social AND political conditions for liberal democracy is laughable.

Lets face it, this is just a garbage arguement for policy change in developed democracies. Its no more relevant than the arguments lefties use about the Patriot Act, or implying that any deviation from wall of seperation leads to the Taliban.

madawaskan

Its because we get less news from there, Zimbabwe we hear of his thugger more often, like the recent story that prompted this thread.

As for slavery and genocide of in the Sudan .. the Christian right on both sides of the pond have been calling atttention to it for two years before the leftist media ever took any notice

....

"Holocaust denial is what you did."

Joe,

Is accusing someone of holocaust denial something taken lightly on this site? I didnt think so in the past. You can read my posts, and see what I said. If you think I did anything like holocaust denial, please let me know, cause if i did anything that even looks like that I need to do Pkuach nefesh for that. If I did not, then I think you need to examine the atmosphere certain posters are creating.

Darn it! Let me also defend Wretchard here...

You say Belmont Club is dead wrong because-

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.

who's to say the motivation would not be different and that they would welcome an oppurtunity to acquire ap art of Zimbabwe.

As for being optimistic-what other choice is there?

If you do not have hope you do not get much accomplished...

As for me I am hoping for money or any other application of political will/force by any other entity besides the US going it alone to somehow fix the problems.

the christian groups were mainly concerned about the South Sudan, where christians are oppressed, than about Darfur. The man most responsible for calling attention to Darfur in the US is Nicholas Kristoff, of the New York Times.

See, people CAN learn. Congratulations on figuring it out.

Few who have actually survived genocide, or been present during one, need teaching. Genocide is one thing that popular armament CAN prevent, because committing genocide is pretty labour intensive. You have to identify the targets and either kill them as found or round them up and remove them. In both cases an armed population of victims is difficult to kill.

ONCE THE TARGETS REALISE DEATH IS COMING, it's very difficult for the murderers to prevail. As long as the targets are armed and realise they are doomed, an "each one kill one" mentality will quickly deter the murderers.

The Warsaw Ghetto is just one example.

As to intervention, the U. S., Britain. or any other advanced country could stop it today. Mugabe is easy to find and cruise missiles are cheap. The problem is that the west has been crying the tears of the white man so long that it is political suicide to violently intervene in Africa. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Hillary Clinton will remain silent while millions die, but kill one tyrant and watch them go ape.

#48 Raymond

Oh my Raymond-so true I'm near tears.

That is exactly it.

The notion that gun laws are a substitute for the work of building the social AND political conditions for liberal democracy is laughable.

I'm not sure anyone has made this argument; I know I never intended to. The argument isn't that guns magically = democracy. The argument is that you can't raze huge portions of cities and force their residents to starve in the countryside if those residents can shoot the people on the bulldozers. Or, at least, the cost of razing goes way, way up, as you first need to send in troops to clear out the armed residents. And of course midnight snatchings of dissidents get really expensive if you have to shoot it out with them in their own homes.

And yes, Mugabe could have "democratically" altered his gun laws. Which is exactly why Joe proposes an international right to arms: such a move should earn the condemnation of the international community and possible sanctions of some kind. When I say that most tyrannies have disarmed their victims before getting started with the killings, I'm explaining one possible reason why armed rebellion against tyranny has be relatively rare. But if the valus of the "world community" (whatever that is) change, then two possible effects are 1) more rebellions (more guns), or 2) fewer tyrannies (because the guns raise the price).

And perhaps you're right about ID badge machines. Fine. Put them on my list of "items the government may not ban."

staghounds: You have to identify the targets and either kill them as found or round them up and remove them.

In the USSR and North Vietnam, they did it by quota

or anyone who once upon a time had an above average income, or anyone whose ancestors had had an above average income.

The lower class peasants were instructed to choose which of their fellow villagers fell into this category, and kill them.

The central government laid down a death quota- 5 percent of the population of each village were to be killed.

If they did not comply, the entire Village was exterminated ..

#52 staghounds

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Hillary Clinton will remain silent while millions die, but kill one tyrant and watch them go ape.

That and if you bring up the Sudan you might get people to remember Clinton's failure to stop the genocide in Rwanda

There is Ayn Rand quote at Wretchard's left by george1776 that so fits-

"Observe the nature of today's alleged peace movements. Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind, they keep screaming the the nuclear-weapons race should be stopped, that armed force should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity. Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist specturm, from welfare statism to socialism to fascism to communism. This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed. "Consider the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the brutality, the slave-labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter perpetrated by dictatorships. Yet this is what today's alleged peace-lovers are willing to advocate or tolerate-in the name of love for humanity"

From Caplitalism the Unknown Ideal. 1966.

Look out- I think Wretchard has already posted a response to you....

liberalhawk, I appreciate your standing up in this forum and giving your opinion. Hopefully, it doesn't feel like you're being ganged up on to bad, but you're the only one here to argue with! So, go get your friends and let's have some real fun!

"And yes, Mugabe could have "democratically" altered his gun laws. Which is exactly why Joe proposes an international right to arms: such a move should earn the condemnation of the international community and possible sanctions of some kind."

Or you could have internationally enforceable human rights of all kinds, including freedom of the press, right to a fair trial, etc. Would achieve much the same thing, without forcing developed democracies to adopt gun policies THEY dont want. Hell, the world community cant even agree on sanctions on Sudan, which is commiting genocide, which has been against international law for years. Why would sanctions suddenly become effective on your issue?

The problem with Rwanda, Sudan, etc was NOT a shortage of applicable international law. It was a shortage of the will to enforce it.

Liberalhawk,

I think Iraqis should have guns, too. In fact, I was particularly tickled by Chrenkoff's coverage of the Iraqi shopkeeper who was being harassed by terrorists, so he and his family got our their AK-47s and proceeded to shoot about 5 of them dead in a 30-minute gun battle.

5 kills, no losses. Now THAT's gun control!

Joe,

Since youre reading these comments, could you please let me know if anything I posted in any comment appeared to be holocaust denial?

To be honest, liberalhawk, I think international rights are nice in theory, worthless in practice. So I guess for me this whole thing is a purely academic exercise.

Except, of course, even as we speak there is a >UN-led movement to force the US to adopt a gun policy it doesn't like, and to have the opposite of an international right to arms: an international right to disarmarment. So I'm not at all moved by indignation at a counter-movement.

re Iraq.

IIUC US military policy in Iraq is to allow AQ-47s, no more than one per household, and no weapons heavier than that. IE they instituted moderate gun control, at a level appropriate to the conditions of Iraqi society.

rob, i check the site you linked to, and ISTM youve mischarecterized the site. Its entirely concerned with the illicit international trade in small arms - stuff like smuggling guns into places like Sierra Leone, etc where they are used to devastate peoples rights.

Arming the 'ndebele today would be rather futile. The people who consigned them to starvation live in London and NY and DC and in every other western city with a large group of liberals guided by thought as shallow as their emotionalism is deep. The aim of the ANC hasn't changed in fifty years. There is very little difference between Mugabe and Mbeki and the outcome in SA will be the same as it is in Zim. Those who supported sanctions against both countries thirty years ago are as responsible for starving the 'ndebele today as is Mugabe.

The Rhodies were quite well armed. They still lost Rhodesia to the forces of tyranny dressed up as "a caring world", murdering with sanctions rather than machetes.

Arming yourself is probably a wise choice, Joe. Properly identifying the friends of tyranny is probably a bit more difficult and naming them perhaps even more so. They're such "good" people with such "moral authority". Generally you can tell them by the boot polish on the lips though.

Here's some good news on the gun control front:

Scotland to get tougher airgun laws

Those deadly airguns.....

liberalhawk,

I haven't read anything you have said to amount to holocaust denial. Another case of words being put into your mouth.

"Every country in West African has experienced widespread violence in which small arms featured.
Firearms have particularly fuelled overlapping and uncontained conflicts in Sierra Leone, Liberia and most recently Cote D’Ivoire, as well as non-conflict related crime and violence. Small arms remain the primary weapons of intra- and inter-communal feuds, local wars, armed insurrections, armed rebel activities and terrorism throughout the region.

As a result of the armed conflict in the region, hundreds if not thousands have already been killed, hundreds of thousands displaced or made refugees, and an immeasurable amount of property destroyed. In addition, small arms have been used to grossly violate human rights, to facilitate the practice of bad governance, to subvert constitutions, to carry out coup d’états and to create and maintain a general state of fear, insecurity and instability."

And look at how many tyrannies have been overthrown WITHOUT mass gun ownership, from eastern europe in '89, to Ukraine, Georgia, etc.

As far as the US goes, I'm with you in thinking that the likelihood of a dictatorship here is vanishingly small. However, unlike you, I'm not willing to start jettisoning some of the reasons why that is so!

Liberalhawk,

I don't see holocaust denial in anything you've written. Comment #51 pissed me off, though.

Christian groups focused on southern Sudan when Darfur had not happened yet. It went on for a long, long time... and as others noted, when black people were being literally enslaved, the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world were nowhere in sight. No, check that - Jesse was busy helping to keep murders in charge across the continent in Liberia.

If Kristoff is really the person responsible for putting Sudan on the radar screen, you have to ask some hard questions. Starting with - why is that?

If those Christian groups had been listened to for all those years, instead of just dismissed by the Left as a bunch of crazy Christians while 2 million black people were killed or enslaved, Darfur would not have happened because the government that sponsored it would be gone.

Summed up in three words: "not our people." Are they?

But Kristoff sure is.

I'm just hoping that your comments aren't meant as disparagement of those Christian groups who did campaign so long and hard to stop the atrocities in Sudan. Or as a dismissal of Christians generally as legitimate political actors with values that go beyond parochial concerns.

Damn. Great post, Joe.

Joe, I too am a Canadian. Thanks for your thoughtful post.

While there is the usual heated exchange on a contentious topic in this situation, I think it brought several things clearly into focus. Since most of the commenters seem much more well informed, I will make a couple of observations that seem to spring from your post and then ask some questions and hope that some of the thoughtful readers have data to bring to bear.

1. In arguments about the merits of widespread gun possession, it seems must be very careful about what issue one is addressing. E.g. against unorganized crime, organized crime, domestic terrorism, government repression, a fallback defense against foreign invasion when a regular army has been defeated or is not available to protect you.

2. Further to that point, whether or not the victims are armed is one example of the attributes of victims that affect outcomes. Presumably there are other important attributes, such as communication, organization, and information. Seems that the defeat of Apartheid was brought about by largely peaceful means, and at least one contributing factor was the organization of the foes of Apartheid.

3. It seems that there are also attributes of the aggressors that matter. On this point, two obvious ideas come to mind. One is Gandhi's use of passive resistance against Britain - it worked because Britain was a civilized nation. Many people of argued (and I would say convincingly) that that technique would not have been effective against Ceaucescu, Stalin, Hitler, etc. The second idea is the organization of the aggressor. In most cases holocausts have been perpretrated with a formal chain of command. The case of Rwanda is much more disturbing because it was largely perpetrated by individuals (obviously motivated by a central group). I'm sure the Milgram experiments are relevant here but I guess the point is that not all oppressors are equal, and different tactics might be called for.

3. Your reference to the Bobbitt article is very compelling, but I would want to be very careful about discussing the behavior of entire nations as if they were individuals. I.e. The Kitty Genovese situation looks like the situation where the "international community" does nothing about Zimbabwe, but the actors are nation states in the latter case.

4. Finally, I think you make an excellent case that waiting for the "international community" to step in is probably not a tenable solution in most cases. I don't, however, think that as a consequence it necessarily follows that having an armed populace, prior to the start of any oppression or genocide, is exactly and only what's needed.

As I said, I would be curious if someone who has studied a variety of situations has a really good handle on what could prevent genocide, and what victims could do to stop one in progress. In order to be compelling, one would need to find situations where the variable in question changes and the outcome changes, but other things remain equal.

Thanks again Joe for your thougtful post.

Joe, I think we need to get rid of the UN. It has devolved to an organization whose only industry is Misery. Why stop it? Kofi and the rest of his gang are misery pimps, they make all their profits adminstering "aid" and "peacekeeping". Where is the incentive for the UN to stop any of it?

hmmm...expecting the UN to get rid of Misery is like expecting divorce lawyers to find a solution for divorce. ;)

The problem with Rwanda, Sudan, etc was NOT a shortage of applicable international law. It was a shortage of the will to enforce it.

Which is why an international right to bear arms is a good thing. It is a last-resort. If a government tries to disarm their population, even if the 'international community' doesn't impose sanctions, the government will still have an armed populace to deal with - something far more costly than having the U.N. on your case.

How is defending yourself against a tyrannical government morally any different from defending yourself or your family against criminals?

Ok, Joe, let me respond on 51.

"the christian groups were mainly concerned about the South Sudan, where christians are oppressed, than about Darfur."

This is absolutely correct. Yes Darfur had not happened yet. When it DID happen, I recall hearing nothing particularly loud from them about it.

As for Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, I have no reason to defend them. I despise Sharpton, and dont particularly care for Jackson.

"The man most responsible for calling attention to Darfur in the US is Nicholas Kristoff, of the New York Times. "

Note - I said calling attention to DARFUR - I did NOT say calling attention to the SUDAN. I chose my words carefully. Attention had been called to the Sudan before - by the Christian groups, among others (I think Human Rights Watch and others played a role as well, though they certainly did NOT focus on Sudan like the Christian groups did)

I did not post this to disparage anyone. But someone was crediting the Christian groups with calling attention to DARFUR. Which, AFAICT, was not the case. I was merely trying to set the record straight. Im sorry if it pissed you off.

And I cant see that it is anything like holocaust denial.

Which again, I think is a very serious charge. Do you agree?

"Maybe somebody with more tact (and time) than I have can explain to you about the US Military, the US nuclear arsenal, and (in particular reference to eastern Europe) those horrible, arms-race-escalating IRBMs that the warmongers Reagan and Thatcher had installed in Europe over the objections of the peace-loving citizens. That is the context in which the peaceful dissolution of the Warsaw Pact occurred. "

If you think Im one of those naifs who thinks the victory of the cold war could have been won by pure gandhian pacifism, youve got me mispegged. Gee, youd think somebody would actually read the nick ive selected for myself. I was not arguing against the need for a strong US military. I WAS pointing out that tyranny was overthrown without mass private ownership of firearms in the countries concerned

Liberalhawk (#75)

Definitely a serious charge. As I said before in #68, I didn't see it either.

You background explanation was very clarifying and helpful. Seems I read a tone into it that wasn't there. My apologies.

Rights cannot exist without responsibilities.

Tyranny cannot exist with an armed citizenry.

All you have to do is look at the Holocaust to see a modern society gone mad.

You are responsible for what you do, the founders knew this, it is still true today. Or it should be, but since the education system has been appropriated by liberals, who knows. Heck 2/3 think today's economy is rotten.

"Definitely a serious charge. As I said before in #68, I didn't see it either."

thank you, but i guess Im waiting for something that Im not seeing.

Oh well. Your site has plenty of good info (esp the Darling posts,etc) I suppose I dont need to wade into the morass of comments.

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.

I've never understood why anyone raises that analogy as an argument against gun rights or for gun control. Constitution or no, can you imagine what holy hell Americans and Canadians alike would