Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
I wonder if my attempts at providing evidence for my original point has confused people. It seems that the forest is being missed for all of the trees. My point- and I stand by it- is simply this: a well-armed population is not a guarantee against tyranny. Insurance policy? Possibly, but warrantee, no.
|
I agree with you on this and I think perhaps I could have expressed my idea in a better way so as something of an attempt at that - weapons alone will not stop a tyranny, the desires & motivations of the people are more of a factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
There are, of course, many other factors at play, especially in Africa. I agree with you both there. This reality, however, supports my main point regarding the United States. One can't simply assume that the Constitutional right of personal firearm ownership means that tyranny can't arise here. I don't even think that firearm ownership even guarantees the right to redress. Are you saying that enlightened western society with democratic, capitalistic values, is immune from tyranny? Surely, not. What about Nazi Germany? And please don't trot out the "if personal firearm ownership had been legal in Germany c. 1933, there wouldn't have been a holocaust" argument because it's simply a counterfactual, Reductio ad Hilterlium logical fallacy.
|
Absolutely not, my argument is that the mentality of the people, their desire to condone or condemn or to simply not think about it at all and just accept it, is what makes or breaks a tyranny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
If you're arguing that a western, democratic, capitalistic society with constitutionally guaranteed personal firearm ownership is immune to tyranny, then I suppose you're right. What's the historical sample size of the just-described nation(s)? Two? Three? Does that prove the theory?
|
No I am not arguing this notion. In fact I would point out Australia as being a prime example of a western, democratic, capitalistic society with a long standing privilege of firearms ownership being open to the tyranny of government. In this case, when a minority enforced their views on the majority via the government.
Specifically, the Franklin River dam project that would have reduced Tasmania's reliance on coal powered electricity (with all the environmental impact from pollution and mining that it entails) by providing a hydro-electric source instead. Environmental activists coerced the federal government to over-rule the Tasmanian state government and the project was abandoned thereby saving a few forest valleys from being flooded -- and so they kept the environmentally "dirtier" coal-fired power stations. It was a short term win for a small sector of the environment but the overall affects of coal-powered stations renders the victory hollow in the long term. It is an example of a minority forcing their views on society irrespective of what might have been better for that society. I label it tyrannical because that minority used the federal government against the desires of the people (i.e. the majority of Tasmania's population). The federal government acted against the majority by forcing the Tasmanian state government to halt work on what should have been a state government matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
Indeed, there are many examples of relatively poorly equipped guerillas defeating better equipped forces. It certainly can be done. That said, many of the rebellions you cited lasted for decades. Did they fix things? Is Afghanistan today a better place to live than Afghanistan under the Soviets, or under the Taliban? Maybe that's a bad example. How about Iraq? Its tyrant is dead and gone, right? It's a republic now, correct? Would any of us move there today? Hell no. Those places live under what I call the tyranny of the gun.
|
My point wasn't about whether they are republics, tyrant-free or even free societies, it was that a sufficiently motivated group
can make a change - for good or for bad - and that
the motivation, not the gun, makes that change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
Yes, other factors besides the proliferation of military grade firearms are at play. I don't know... maybe we agree more than I think we do. To be quite honest, I myself am losing sight of how this debate got started. Perhaps I should stand down and wait for a reset.
|
I believe we do agree and my point was I believe, in line with your overall view. I was attempting to show that motivation makes the change. For example, the majority view of some Westerners that firearms ownership in the USA causes crime, is not just simplistic but probably dangerous as well. It is only a small part of the equation but the reason there is crime in the US is not because of such a simplistic answer.
I would ask, why do some people in western societies feel violence is an acceptable answer to their problems, what caused those problems in the first place and so on?
Again, I come back to the motivations of the people in causing (or not) change in their societies.