Laws don't stop men with guns. Men with guns stop men with guns. Laws not enforced and rights not protected don't matter.
As the old saying goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Laws don't stop men with guns. Men with guns stop men with guns. Laws not enforced and rights not protected don't matter.
As the old saying goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
> Laws don't stop men with guns. Men with guns stop men with guns.
Prove it. Every statistic I've ever seen shows the exact opposite of this to be true.
Here's the proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_... . Those kinds of mass killings can only happen when the citizens are disarmed, because it's logistically impossible for a government to seize absolute power when a significant proportion of the citizens are armed.
Those kind of mass killings also happen in authoritative regimes, which typically emerge from violent societies.
> it's logistically impossible for a government to seize absolute power when a significant proportion of the citizens are armed.
This is literally, and provably, untrue. For example:
The Soviet Union: The Bolsheviks initially proclaimed that "the arming of the working people" was essential to prevent "restoration of the power of the exploiters". It was only later that they restricted private gun ownership.
The Nazis: Contrary to popular gun rights narratives, Nazi gun laws actually relaxed restrictions for most Germans while targeting specific groups. Sometimes authoritarianism is the same as populism.
Rwanda: Prior to the genocide, the government systematically distributed weapons to local administrators and militia groups while ensuring targeted populations remained defenseless.
Myanmar: Armed civilian resistance groups formed, but the were essentially wiped out by the overwhelming advantages in air power and heavy weaponry that an actual organized military had. The firearms were useless. Arguably, worse than useless as those who fought back died in large numbers.
Venezuela: The regime armed its supporters while systematically removing weapons from the general population. The population was well armed, they just couldn't fight back against an organized government response.
Perhaps they meant the police as the men with guns doing the stopping, and the states monopoly on violence. I for one wholeheartedly support the police enforcing gun control laws and dealing with armed criminals.
>Men with guns stop men with guns.
Really? Why does America, the country with the most guns by far, have the most gun deaths by far? It's very tiring arguing these very obvious points over and over.
Nazi Germany, Communist China and Soviet Russia have by far the largest number of deaths by _men with guns_, over a hundred million people killed by their own governments. The guns of US citizens have so far prevented this kind of government-led mass citizen genocide from happening. The number of people killed by gun violence in the US is a rounding error compared to the number of people killed by Mao, Hitler and Stalin.
Most people killed by these regimes killed people as aliens. If truly want to compare the actions of the USA, you must also count there handling of there aliens (e.g. in wars).
> The guns of US citizens have so far prevented this kind of government-led mass citizen genocide from happening.
No they haven't. Our system of checks and balances has. At no point has there been a civil war in which the US's citizens attempted to fight back against the US military. If there were, the citizens would lose without even presenting a challenge.
>the citizens would lose without even presenting a challenge.
That's not true. The US Army spent 20 years and trillions of dollars trying to impose regime change on Afghanistan, but were defeated by a group (the Taliban) that had very little military capability beyond men with rifles and some explosives to make improvised bombs. (Yes, they also had decades-old weapons with which to shoot down helicopters.) Algeria's war of independence from France in the 1950s and early 1960s is another example where a group with very little in the way of military capability defeated one of the most powerful militaries in the world.
I don't necessarily buy the argument that the US should continue with the gun status quo just because all those guns would come in handy in a revolution, but you haven't successfully refuted the argument.
The Afghanistan bit is over simplified isn't it? My understanding is that the US military successfully imposed regime change between 2001-2003. I doubt those rifles slowed the tanks and bombers much at all.
The fact that we packed up and left eventually doesn't really change the fact that the US rolled over the men with guns like they weren't there in the early 2000's.
The Algerian war doesn't really prove much either, except that terrorism works.
The Algerians hid within the population and gradually picked at the French, like flies biting a bull. Eventually the French got bored and wandered off to find a new form of entertainment. If anything the French lost to propaganda, not guns.
>The Algerians hid within the population
Yes, but we're discussing a civil war or revolution in the US, where the rebels or revolutionaries would be able to engage in terrorism and to hide within the population -- and where there are so many long guns in private hands that the defending force (the government) probably wouldn't be able to deprive the attacking force (the rebels) of long guns simply by punishing any civilian found with a long gun in their home.
My point is that it wasn't the guns that saved the Algerians. Knives, bayonets, and IEDs would have been equaly effective for the sort of guerilla tactics that eventually won the war.
I find it very unlikely that "knives, bayonets, and IEDs would have been equally effective". The ALN ambushed French convoys and patrols, raided isolated military outposts and police stations and defended themselves when their camps and zones were attacked. I doubt the ALN could have succeeded in those encounters even one tenth as often as they actually did if they had no access or much worse access to guns (with "success" meaning inflicting casualties on the occupier, avoiding taking casualties, capturing supplies (including guns) and disrupting the occupier's control).
There is a reason people say, "don't bring a knife to a gun fight".
The ALN got guns from donors and sympathizers in Egypt and other Arab countries. In later years, the Eastern Bloc and China also contributed supplies, including guns.
Was there a single significant war, rebellion or revolution in the last 100 years where both sides didn't have a gun for every fighter or almost that many guns? I'm not sure, but I doubt it.
>Was there a single significant war, rebellion or revolution in the last 100 years where both sides didn't have a gun for every fighter or almost that many guns? I'm not sure, but I doubt it.
Again though, the French like the Americans in Afghanistan, were not defeated on the battlefield. They lost because they got tired of fighting the natives and the war had become politically unpopular.
Howeer, even if I stipulate that the guns are the thing that made the difference it's irrelevant. The Algerians were not legally allowed to own those guns. So the very promise that their right to bear arms is responsible for their victory is unreasonable from the start. They had no such right in Algeria.
>the French like the Americans in Afghanistan, were not defeated on the battlefield. They lost because they got tired of fighting the natives and the war had become politically unpopular.
I don't see how your distinction is relevant. Since 1962, it has been the people the ALN wanted to have power (i.e., not anybody in Europe) who have made all the important policy decisions in Algeria. Since the Taliban took Kabul in Aug 2021, they've made all the important national decisions in Afghanistan. All the US's trillions in spending (and about 2800 American lives lost) gives it no say.
It's relevant because the guns did not stop them from being invaded, or force the invaders to leave. A poorly trained group of insurgents can't defeat a modern military in battle.
Politics were ultimately the thing that won the war, and if it happens here the results will be the same. Our 'well regulated militia' of gravy seals won't even slow the military down in battle, it will be up to the citizenry to wear them down gradually.
It has been frustrating to dialog with you...
Sorry for that. It wasn't intentional.
I do appreciate your time and the willingness to engage.