OT: Seriously????

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I don't see legalized firearm ownership as being a "system of redress", if that's one of your arguments. I'm not opposed to the 2nd Amendment, per se, but I don't buy into the whole "firearm ownership is a counter to tyranny" argument. What about the tyranny of gun violence? There are at least a dozen countries in Africa where firearm ownership- legal or otherwise- is widespread, and those are some of the most violent, horrific, unsafe, and unstable countries in the world (Somalia, anyone?). These "republics" routinely bounce from one tyrant to another and the proliferation of military-grade weaponry there means that anyone who can muster a few dozen supporters can launch a new armed rebellion/revolution/coup/putsch/liberation movement, etc. Does it really matter if these guns or uprisings are "legal" or not? More or less could also be said for the so-called Tribal Areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

And I'm going to go back to the Whiskey Rebellion again. Armed frontiersmen couldn't stand up to a federal army- and that was when the disparity in weapon types available to one party or the other was much smaller (i.e. the rebels had muzzle lading muskets; the federal troops had the same, plus a few canons, plus some cavalry). Heck, look at the American Civil War. One of the reasons that the South lost is because of the North's overwhelming industrial capacity. The South was confident that its citizens' gun ownership/experience and fieldcraft, vis-à-vis the more urbanized, less well-armed Northern citizenry, meant that the rebels would win the war. In the end, the correlation of forces was just too much for the South to withstand. In a worst-case scenario, are mobs of citizens armed with assault weapons going to be able to stop federal tyranny? Assuming blanket military support, the feds can bring to bear incredible firepower (Apache gunships, Predator drones, M1 MBTs, etc.) which armed citizens are going to be hard pressed to stand against. Best case for the rebels would be a long, drawn out guerrilla war (like what's been going on in Syria for the last 3 years, or Afghanistan for over a decade). The idea that armed citizenry is a guarantee against tyranny is really a macho fantasy.

Compare these two lists. I know that it's Wikipedia, but it was the first hit and looks pretty reasonable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

The list above is for civilian-owned firearms. Considering the nebulous nature of various African "armies", "militias", etc., I reckon their ratios of guns to people would be a lot higher on the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rmed_conflicts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms_trade

As an exception that proves the rule, in Mexico, gun ownership is strictly limited by law, but look at what goes on there. If every Mexican citizen was constitutionally permitted to bear arms, would the violence likely be any less? I don't know.

I served in Somalia (RESTORE HOPE) and I can tell you that most African Nations are not "republics." They are Juntas. Somalia is exactly what would happen in England (or most of Europe) if your country suddenly collapsed and there was nobody powerful enough to assume control. Before and during the collapse; the populace were generally not armed as was the tradition in all Italian colonies. The primary perpetrators of the violence were former soldiers and policemen who "took their toys with them" when the country imploded. The arms that came into the country later were provided "en mass" to the clans by Al Qaeda working in Yemen in exchange for drugs like "chault" (the pronounced "shalk" or "caulk" depending on what region your in).

Your example of the Whiskey Rebellion is a poor example because it involved a small number of PA farmers WITHOUT the support of the local populace. It should be viewed more like the incident at the Bundy Ranch a couple of years ago than an actual rebellion. Guns do prevent Tyranny because a government has to ask itself if it could survive frequent and possibly "long term" attack on it's infrastructure from well hidden "rebels/insurgents" within the population base. The US did not technically "win" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Taliban were "dispersed," but immediately "reformed" as soon as the US troop withdrawls began. This is the one "Truth" of The War on Terror; IT CAN NEVER BE WON. Like the War On Drugs, and The War On Crime; There is now way to win without completely suspending ALL RIGHTS and engaging in a genocide against anyone you even SUSPECT of being involved. There is no other way to win the war. If just one or two individuals begin to perform the activities that you were trying to eradicate; Those individuals will find someone who is sympathetic to their cause.
Without trying to sound too harsh; Your assumptions about the North during the Civil War are wrong. The North OUTGUNNED THE SOUTH in both cannon and manpower in EVERY major battle of the war. What caused the North to lose so many battles was, in two words, poor leadership. The Northern commanders would "hesitate" and give the South time to take the "high ground." The North would then be forced into making an attack on well defended positions with good "interior lines of communication and supply."
The one time the North was lucky enough to take the "high ground" and hold it until the main body of the Army could arrive (Gettysburg); The North won and the South was put on the defensive from then on. It wasn't until strong commanders like Sherman arrived on the scene that the South had truly lost the war. This does highlight a point of war. Without GOOD leadership, victory will be elusive, no matter how well equipped you are.