Reply #321: Hey, buddy, the NRA bragged about putting the Bush regime in power

[billbuckhead]

Though more likely the gun "rights" movement is cover for stealing elections and futhering the neoCON agenda. Here's a excerpt about how ridiculous the idea that private guns protect freedom from bad goverments.

3. Self-defense (against government)

Every now and then, an extreme voice in the debate pops up and argues that if many Americans own guns, it is better for the general welfare of the country in case we are invaded by a foreign power, or by an American government gone tyrannical. Let's look at both of these in turn.
As for fears of foreign invasion, given the strength of American military, there is virtually nothing that a civilian with a gun can do which the military could not. Often, this paranoia is manifested in fears of a increasingly powerful United Nations, but this is even sillier, as the United States maintains veto power in the Security Council (and would thus have far more to lose by withdrawing from the UN, despite what some radical critics have said). Thus, there is no present danger to the United States from foreign invasion of any kind, and if the danger arises, and arming the general populace becomes necessary, it should be done through the auspices of the US Military, where people will be guaranteed to receive training in marksmanship, and more importantly, gun safety.

Other paranoid voices argue that the citizens should arm themselves against their own government. Sometimes they point to Waco or Ruby Ridge as examples, usually failing to note that it was precisely people arming themselves against government that attracted the government's attention in the first place. The US Government knows it's history -- it knows that Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, and even Hitler started out as leader of a small group of lunatics who had easy access to firearms. They used their guns to intimidate people, and thus gain power.

Would you have supported the "freedom" for Hitler and his cronies to own guns in 1932? Mao in 1947-48? Because those freedoms directly led to the abrogation of the ultimate right -- the right to life -- for at least 30 million people. Gun control is NOT about a government trying to disarm a people so that government can be tyrannical. It is about trying to disarm people so that people cannot be.

There is always the possibility (although an incredibly remote one) that another Hitler may arise to power, democratically elected and supported, and begin to ignore the basic ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But not only can we elect our leaders, we can un-elect them as well. We have extensive checks and balances to make sure no one person or agency can have too much power, and we have a healthy respect for democracy earned over 200 years. These are features that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan lacked. There is always the possibility that another Hitler will come, yes, but in the meantime, we have the certainty of the annual toll in gun damage, which I will speak about later. We must weigh this certainty against the infinitesimally small chance that our well-constructed checks and balances will suddenly all fail.

And what if they do fail? What can we do about it if we are not armed? First, let's answer the contrapositive: what can we do about it if, say, the US Military takes over, and we are armed? Frankly, the number of people supporting a rebellion will be far more important than their weapons. One town of guys with shotguns won't cow the US Military, and a .45 isn't much good against an F-15. So unless one is prepared to argue that civilians should have the right to own similar weaponry, heavy artillery, even nuclear weapons, this argument must fall.

Now, we answer the question, what can we do about it if, say, the US Military takes over, and we are not armed? The only option is to do what the Russians did; mass revolt. If numbers are sufficient, guns are not necessary. It took nary a shot to bring down the USSR. If 10 million Chinese (just 1% of the nation) streamed into Tiananmen Square demanding a new government (rather than the 1,000 or so who did previously), the government would have no choice but to comply.
--------------snip--------------------------------------------
<http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/freedom.htm>