armed citizens inoculate a society against tyranny..

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

yes or no? and why..

[kwolf68]

1. Yes

Until the scourge of a violent culture inoculates the society itself.

[ThomWV]

2. Yes - and that is precisely what the founding fathers contemplated

[Dr Fate]

3. So when do the Freepers rise up against Bush in armed rebellion then?

No wait- they would be shooting the protesters, wouldnt they?

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Little known factoid

but many a house in Sadamn's Iraq had Ak-47s at home, as well as other weapons

It is part of the culture that males need to be armed

Now tell me exactly how that inoculated that society against tyranny?

(Ah I do love CBC for running stories such as this one and how easy it was to buy a gun even days before the invasion)

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

8. did the Iraqi's call it tyranny?

do americans call what we have here today tyranny?

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. The question to ask is a tad different

is Iraq even a single nation? Given its colonial history, perhaps not.

As to what they had, they called it a tiranny, but internal security under Sadamn was not only effective, but ruthless

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

39. not sure i'd agree that the Iraqis called it tyranny because my

opinion is only based on what i've been told by a close friend that grew up in Baghdad.

but either way; i bet they are thankful they have those AKs now. compared to imperial tyranny.. Saddam was a girl scout

[ThomWV]

10. There is a difference between having tools and having will

They had the tools to relieve themselves of the tyrany they lived under, they did not have the will to do so. I do not know why they lacked this critical component to a free society - do you?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. Just a guess....

I do not know why they lacked this critical component to a free society - do you?

Um, er, Death? :think:

[atreides1]

13. But

Would it have been different if the Iraqi people had had the same concept about tyranny as we Americans do?

[Erebus67]

20. Guns are just the tool, the will is still required.

Our founding fathers believed that the will to resist tyranny would remain in the US. I believe it is still here. Look how the people reacted after Pearl Harbor. They got ticked and kicked tyrannical butt(Japan/Germany). Look how the people reacted after 9-11. We got ticked and kicked tyrannical butt(Taliban/Saddam). It's too bad that W didn't have an after action plan and expected everything to just fall in place and now it's going in the toilet. A better CNC would have had such a plan and we would have already solved the Iraq situation and would be ready if another such action was needed. But now I am straying off the topic at hand.

[Cha]

25. Too bad Stupid went into Iraq

because they had not a fucking thing to do with 9/11 and now we've got more FUCKING TERRORISTS in the world than ever before March 20, 2003.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Too bad 9.11 had nothing to do with Iraq

and Iraq was in the sights fo the current boys since at least 1998 (PNAC) quite possibly earlier

[piedmont]

32. Yeah, but those houses were SUNNI. nt

[treestar]

45. Then according to the argument, they should not have been

living in a dictatorship.

[Richard Steele]

5. Yes. "George W. Bush" is a great argument for privately-owned firearms.

Lots of them.

[Erebus67]

23. The 'Patriot Act' is certainly a great argument for owning guns

[unpossibles]

40. honestly, I'm not sure I agree

I would rather people - including both public and government - paid attention in the first place so we could avoid things like the Patriot Act. Guns neither protect against nor guarantee tyranny - they are a tool and honestly they are a tool for both sides of tyranny.

[Benhurst]

6. Yes, Iraqi citizens were armed before the invasion (averaging

one weapon per household), and they certainly never had a problem with tyranny.

www.slate.com/id/2081185/

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

18. they do now

[kwassa]

7. No. Look at Hussein's Iraq.

The average Iraqi had an AK-47 in his house.

the average citizen was heavily armed.

This did nothing to mitigate Hussein's tyranny and murder.

[Mojorabbit]

9. And yet they

are repelling an invasion...

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

12. bingo

[lyonn]

24. How about another Bingo!

[kwassa]

41. Bingo away, but you haven't refuted my point in any way.

Tyranny can exist in a country with a fully-armed population.

This gives the lie to the most cherished beliefs of the pro-gun faction.

[Irreverend IX]

43. Read this article a little more closely:

http://www.slate.com/id/2081185/

The writer admits that Saddam only allowed Baathists and loyalists to own AK-47s and other military-grade weapons. Common citizens were limited to mostly pistols and shotguns.

And another important point is that Iraqis have never lived in a free society. They went from the Ottomans to British rule to a king to the Baathists. With no cultural history of representative government, it won't be so easy for them to make democracy survive.

[kwassa]

44. but common citizens still had pistols and shotguns.

This made no difference in securing freedom for themselves.

"With no cultural history of representative government, it won't be so easy for them to make democracy survive."

I agree. Freedom and democracy are about culture, not gun ownership.

[Irreverend IX]

47. Pistols and shotguns suck against assault rifles.

AKs have way more damaging power than pistols, a much higher ammo capacity than shotguns and a much longer effective range than either. Gun ownership does alone does not guarantee democracy, but there's a reason that so many totalitarian regimes had strict gun control.

It's also interesting to note that Saddam did not have perfect control over Iraq. Fallujah, in particular, was problematic for him. I read that after his takeover, Saddam appointed a governor of Fallujah who was killed the next day. He appointed another governor who was killed in two days, and after that he kind of adopted a hands-off approach for the whole region.

[kwassa]

49. So, you still haven't rebutted my point

Anytime you would like to do so, let me know.

You are going off on tangents.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. No. The tyranny of the gun is just as bad.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

15. and the desperate..

[Xenotime]

37. Agreed

[baldguy]

14. "There are four boxes to use in the defense of Liberty:"

"Soap. Ballot. Jury. Ammo. They are to be used only in that order."

The problem is that too many people mix up the order.

[Monk06]

16. No. The American Revolution is to my recollection the only

revolt against the tyranny of Aristocracy that
did not fall headlong into a subsequent blood
bath for the control of the state.

This did not happen because of a well armed
citizenry. It happened because Americans
consented to being governed by laws of their
own creation.

But I'm just a dumb Canuck so what do I know.

[Sapere aude]

17. Armed citizens scare the hell out of me. Freepers armed? Run for the hills!

Everyone goes bonkers once in a while. Imagine if you will more people going bonkers and armed. That is a recipe for more deaths I think, not less. Let responsible people buy guns and let the rest of society out of it.

[Fresh_Start]

19. not, if they support the tyrant

which is the current situation

[slackmaster]

21. Maybe

It certainly doesn't hurt.

[aljones]

26. No, not any more anyway!!

Only if the citizens of the society are armed with all the fire power the potential tyrannical government has at its disposal does those armed citizens inoculate against tyranny!!

I believe the 2nd Amendments purpose was for the citizens to protect themselves against a corrupt government, unfortunately we no longer have that ability.

[piedmont]

34. Iraqis don't have the same firepower as "Allied" troops. It's called ASYMMETRICAL warfare.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

36. what about local tyranny..

like a totally corrupt sheriffs dept in a small town?

[KG]

29. not only no, but hell no

just a paraniod fantasy of the gun loving crowd.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

33. do you believe a government should fear it's people?

[piedmont]

35. Why not? nt

[Erebus67]

30. Yes how else do you get rid of tyranny?

[stevietheman]

31. Absolutely. It's why we have a Second Amendment. n/t

n/t

[baldguy]

42. No it isn't.

We have the Second Amendment because the Continental Government had neither the funds nor the inclination to maintain a standing army.

[stevietheman]

50. Nope. n/t

n/t

[piedmont]

38. They certainly help. Over 180 MILLION unarmed people killed by their governments in the 20th century

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

[warren pease]

46. And notice how well it's working at the moment. n/t

[Gruenemann]

48. NO NO NO

We're armed to the teeth and the tyrant W is unchecked.