Stefan Viljoen schrieb:

> We've been telling this, almost word for word, to our government for about
> 14 years now. No result. Again, there is no guarantee that the state will
> always be "perfect" and behave in the way you describe. It is when states
> fail, or become oppressive of the mass of their citizens (as the old
> Apartheid state was towards black people) that those citizens
> must -already- be armed and ready to defend themselves. Against the state,
> if need be.

Wouldn't work. If they really wanted to kick your ass, they'd make sure 
to find a reason to take away the guns from you (and only you) /first/.

Maybe by provoking you a bit, so you start shooting at them, as of 
course you know right from the start that your freedom is at stake.

Or if you don't shoot, they'd go further and further, until you either 
do shoot (giving them a reason at last to take away your weapons) or 
have come close enough to take your weapon right out of your hand anyway.

So either way you'd lose.

Unless the government is going against /everyone/ - but I've never heard 
of a case of governmental oppression without anyone benefiting from it, 
so they'll always have someone on /their/ side.

> Good points. It was interesting however, to note after the London
> bus-bombings, how quickly the "iron fist" of massively armed police almost
> everywhere was brought out of the "velvet glove" of the unarmed Joe Bobby
> on patrol. Again, as you say, it only works because (up to now, apparently
> this is changing) everybody understood and respected the law. So you could
> probably afford to disarm your police, since the citizens were not armed.
> Still, the lone armed criminal will be a nasty and fatal surprise to the
> unarmed policeman or citizen - the citizen or policeman will promptly get
> killed in that case. While an armed policeman or citizen might be able to
> offer resistance.

Yes, but life isn't bullet-proof anyway. There's always a tradeoff 
between sweating under a heavy flak vest each day, or taking the risk of 
getting shot. What to do depends on how likely it is that someone may 
point a gun at you.

> Hehe "somewhat tame" - I like that. Once again, the same refrain - you have
> to decide what is "tame" and at what point it is "tame enough" to disarm
> your citizens. Hitler and Stalin also decided what "tameness" level they
> wanted out of their subjects, as did Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot, Galtieri,
> Muamar Ghadaffi, the list of dictators goes on.

Some of the cases cited should also tell you that at least in more 
prosperous contries, an oppressive government will typically come 
silently through the back door. Or being let in by someone living in the 
house.

"Oh, son, did you bring a friend of yours?"

"No, mom, it's just a guy who said he wants my brother's money and rape 
my sister. I don't really care about those two, so I thought I'd let him 
in. He promised there'll be something in for me, too."

 > It is your right NOT to have it as well. But it is unjust to
> DENY a right that is intrinsic to personal freedom of others, and of
> peoples.

I disagree on this topic. I do think there's a human right for 
self-defense, but I don't think this automatically includes the right 
for having a weapon of your personal choice loaded & ready for that 
purpose. I consider that a secondary right derived from that first one, 
and as such depending on the circumstances.

Should Bill Gates be allowed to buy a private squadron of F117, loaded 
with one or two tactical nukes each maybe, just in case the government 
might feel an urge to go nuts, so that there is adequate firepower in 
private hands to prevail?

Of course this is extreme example, but the point is that there must be 
/some/ limit to the right to personal armament for potential 
self-defense; and I guess this limit depends on the imminent danger 
you're living in, not just some possible danger lurking in your darkest 
dreams.

Consider this:

If personal armament is there to prevent the government from going nuts, 
then that personal armament must obviously be superior to the armament 
under governmental control.

However, if the personal armament is superior to that under governmental 
control, what can a /good/ government possibly do in case the /society/ 
should go nuts and fall into disarray and anarchy?

Both scenarios are true possibilities. Preparing for one automatically 
means being unprepared for the other.

Post a reply to this message