Great Amerian Gun Myth no 3 Guns will ensure my freedom!!

Okay - convince me - HOW???

I live in Australia - famous among the pro-gun lobby as having virtually invented the "gun buy-back" and therefore loudly touted as an example of a disarmed populace

Convince me - how would opening the floodgates so that every dingbat, low life, criminal and testosterone poisoned puppy could own a gun and wave it round like a magic wand - how is THAT going to "ensure my freedoms"?

 

I can't convince you of something I do not believe in!

I hate guns.

 

ME too - but I am always up for a good debate! Trouble is I have yet to meet anyone who can actually frame an argument that carries past the meme of "guns = freedoms" and tell me how that actually works because when you look at revolutions - the armed revolutions usually end in years of civil war and disorder while the unarmed revolutions usually end with an overturned government and freer people

But I will wait and see what responses I get

 

I certainly wouldn`t like to see anyone armed, who was as unstable as the OP seems to be. Not even with a plastic knife & fork, in fact.

 

One thing that needs to be pointed out is that this is what you think of your own countrymen much less yourself.

 

hat America does not have any Dingbats or crime - Geeze they must have all shot each other!!

 

I first want to point out that we (America) already has laws and procedures in place in an attempt to keep firearms away from, as you put it, dingbats, low-lifes, and criminals. The wide-held belief by the vast majority of people in America (gun owners or not) is that these people should not have access to firearms.

Now, these people do get guns illegally, it happens, but not at the blood-in-the-streets rates that people outside the US seem to think. Mass shootings are rare and gun-related crimes are on a sliding scale in terms of how common they are; generally following along with the conditions that tend to be conducive to criminal activity in general (which varies from area to area). Guns are not a cause of crime, plain and simple.

Getting back to your question: allowing the populace to be armed, in theory, ensures freedom as it acts as a safe-guard against a tyrannical government - this is the primary purpose of our Second Amendment.

I believe the thought to be two-fold:

1. A government is less likely to reduce the freedoms of its people if it knows it will encounter armed resistance to those changes.
2. If a government does become tyrannical, it will be easier for the people to resist and force change of the government if they're armed.

There is a ton to say about this subject but in the interest of being brief: this is one of the beliefs that America was founded with and not everyone in the world will agree with it, however its just not going to change anytime soon; it works for us and generally speaking there is support for it by the general public. On a personal note: I generally trust my neighbor to be armed (as I hope they do I) and I hope that they would come to my aid (as I would theirs) when required; especially in the case of an out of control government.

 

There's a reason why the Swiss were never invaded.

Plus since felons are already banned from owning any gun, your statement about "giving criminals" a gun wouldn't apply unless they managed to get one illegally to begin with.

Since Australia is an island my guess is that the illegal flow of guns would be much harder, however in America even if guns were banned or strictly regulated, there would be a huge illegal market for guns flowing in from the cartels in Mexico and central America, so criminals would own guns in much higher proportion to law-abiding citizens.

 

We all know that AR-15's and my grand pappy's Remy 700 will take down an Abrams tank in one shot.

 

A bunch of men running with K-31's are not going to stop a Nazi invasion.

Sorry to break the news.

 

Guns already saved freedom at least once:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

If you don't want to read it here is a video:

Restoring Rule of Law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw

 

That is why I plan to use an F-15 vs a tank.

 

Heh - its true that there is a lopsided amount of force available to one side vs the other in the event that the United States population would have to resist a tyrannical government.

The post was more explaining why the Second Amendment exists and what the theory behind it is believed to be - not if we would actually stand a chance against a fully mobilized military. Honestly its truly hard to say what the outcome would be for a lot of reasons - odds do favor the mobilized military, however history has shown that an armed populace can stand effectively against a better armed foe. To add to the original point - having the arms more easily enables us to resist - removing them makes its significantly more difficult; it has nothing to do with what the real odds are (and they do vary from situation to situation).

Having said that, logically given the options in resistance, I'd rather have arms available to me if that time ever came vs. starting from scratch; also don't forget that removing the arms from people can greatly reduce their want to resist - which is part of the issue as well. The people being armed is one starting point for their ability to keep government in check, not an end-game.

I also don't believe in this argument of "they're better armed so we might as well give up" (not trying to put words in your mouth either; its just what I hear when people make that point).

 

You obviously know that Switzerland has a very high proportion of the population who are trained in the use of, and are in posession of firearms, and that crime rates in Switzerland are very low. The crime rates in Switzerland will rise dramatically in the next few years, due to their immigration intake.

As to the OP. Isn`t it obvioius that it`s easier to push unarmed sheeple around that an armed and determined population? Needing to explain this, is a bit like needing to explain to someone why they`ll get wet if they go out in the rain.

 

Really?? Well, if you don't want the rest of the world to get the wrong impression I would stop posting pictures of NRA conventions

Getting back to your question: allowing the populace to be armed, in theory, ensures freedom as it acts as a safe-guard against a tyrannical government - this is the primary purpose of our Second Amendment.

I believe the thought to be two-fold:

1. A government is less likely to reduce the freedoms of its people if it knows it will encounter armed resistance to those changes.
2. If a government does become tyrannical, it will be easier for the people to resist and force change of the government if they're armed.

There is a ton to say about this subject but in the interest of being brief: this is one of the beliefs that America was founded with and not everyone in the world will agree with it, however its just not going to change anytime soon; it works for us and generally speaking there is support for it by the general public. On a personal note: I generally trust my neighbor to be armed (as I hope they do I) and I hope that they would come to my aid (as I would theirs) when required; especially in the case of an out of control government.[/QUOTE]

And once again I get as an answer a mish mash of myths from "guns stop crime" (that is myth 4) to "My SeCoND AMEnDMeNT!!!"

And your "explanation" proves nothing but more regurgitated myths -

Is there proof that at any time in the history of the world, that a government stopped itself from enacting changes that would

and here I am thinking of the "patriot act" and how close America came to legislating a lot of freedoms away

Tell me - using the patriot act as a marker - when are you going to arise against the government in armed rebellion?

 

It is an Island with a low population, HUGE coastline which is mostly not patrolled and the whole of south east asia as neighbours - do the math

We are just fortunate that SE Asia does not have the gun culture that America and Mexico seem to have

 

Really? You're still going to take that idiotic line that an armed citizenry can't fight a fully equiped modern military? Use some imagination, think like the Taliban. Those illiterate ********s living in huts made of dirt have done pretty well. Or Vietnamese. (*)(*)(*)(*) you ignorant unimaginative tunnel vision buffoons drive me crazy. Hope you're never on my side.

 

I agree with you. If every low life etc had a gun, it would be a disaster. Of course, thats not what we have in the US.

And your disarmed populace has more crime than the US (and more suicides), as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring.

 

You seem to forget that the gun control people think that anyone that owns a gun is a low life.

 

Surely all rational people are 'gun control people'?

 

Please read more carefully in the future. You asked a question about how guns can ensure freedom in relation to America. I answered, very clearly, using the Second Amendment as the focal point as that is generally considered ground zero for this belief...

Now your changing the argument and trying to distract with the Patriot Act (which is a misguided and dangerous expansion of government that I don't think you fully understand...). I'm not going to play this game of moving the goal posts - you asked how guns can ensure freedom and I have given you a reasonable and historically back answer.

There are plenty of examples, both modern and historical of an armed populace pushing back and succeeding against a tyrannical act of a government. Someone mentioned the Battle of Athens earlier, which is a great example in modern American history.

Your question of how firearms can ensure and protect freedoms has been answered - accept it or don't - really I don't care either way.

 

Given the US has always had gun control, would you argue that the US has effectively been constructed according to a tyranny based on restricting the influence of the population?

 

That is one and even one I expected - and it is a LOCAL event with clear and identifiable "enemies" and even then there was a mix of circumstances that enabled this to happen

Ironically it was not guns but a couple of sticks of dynamite that really ended the "battle"
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/battle-athens?page=4

And, as always this myth never addresses what you would do AFTERWARDS

We were not so successful with armed rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Rebellion
Although the "Eureka Stockade" flag flies to this day over Union buildings

So let me counter with UNARMED revolutions (plural)
and we start with Ghandi - the Indian nation never thought it would get rid of the British Raj until a "Little brown man in a loincloth" brought it to it's knees

Fast forward to 1986 in the Philippines and the "People's Power" revolution

Non-violent civil resistance can and often is extremely successful in bringing about change

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

 

Sorry but I asked how guns would ensure MY freedoms and you rabbeted on about the second amendment in America

 

personally, I am glad you are safe. Stay where you're at.......while you are at it, are you going for that take away your guns stance again?
By the way, where are your converts, or did you lie? the rest of the forum has a right to know your intentions......