Sam Harris: A Liberal's Argument Against Gun Control

[HumblePie]

Exactly. The tyranny argument is an appeal to emotions and is about as thoughtful as getting rid of all guns as some may want.


But hey, emotions aren't logical so it's expected.

Tyranny from a government agency, or representative does not need to happen on a national scale for a citizen to require the need to defend themselves. That's a strawman logic fallacy.

 

[dank69]

His article title is that he is going to argue against gun control. Then goes into the intro and later in the argument that he believes in "sensible" gun control laws. This is a cognitive dissonance argument right there. He makes some good points for his original argument, then really goes stupid with a few counter argument points that he presents very badly. Just pointing out that this makes for a bad overall article for the point he is trying to get across.

Actually, he states in the opening paragraph that there are zealots on both sides. When he brought up the defense against government part it was an example of an equally nonsensical argument from the right, and I fully agree with that point. After reading your rebuttal to it in your other post, I think you underestimate the power of the government at this point. The government *could* go "scorched earth" since I'm sure they have plenty of bunkers but let's disregard that for now since it doesn't have to be that drastic. First of all, most people are not armed at all, many are disabled and many are young or very old, so your 300M number is way off. But even if it was 300M armed with assault rifles wtf is that going to do against traditional gunships/airstikes/tanks? Nothing. If the government wanted a takeover it could have it any time it wanted. 300M assault rifles might as well be 300M peashooters.

 

[monovillage]

That's all well and good but there are additional constitutional amendments with regards to voting that don't apply to guns, the poll tax being one of them.

So that can affect 1 and does affect #2. So do you stand by your comment?

What's a tax and what's a fee? Is it a fee but not a tax if it's used to verify information and costs the fed/state/local revenue to do it?

 

[dank69]

If your argument is based upon a national federal level, then yep you are correct. But armed population is not for only a national defense, but can be used for a local one as well. Battle Of Athens comes to mind. Tyranny of the government or authority doesn't have to be on a wide scale national level.

Now I do agree with you that if I was at a gun counter and a person buying a gun next to me professes the reason for his purchase is to defend himself against the government, I might move away as well. Although that is what the Constitutional 2nd amendment is ultimately for, that should not be the overriding reason for all citizens to go out and buy a gun for. I certainly do not. That's like a person looking for a fight.

But back to the argument I was making, people counter the 2nd amendment purpose of a check against tyranny by always using a national level check. That idea is laughable to just about everyone. But as the Battle of Athens shows, it is not a defense against a government representative on a national scale only. Its when the cops bust down your door for some unknown illegal reason (which still happens to this day) you should be able to defend yourself against such an incursion.

If a cop busts down your door and you shoot him you will be going to jail, even if it is unjust. Thinking otherwise is crazy. I'm not saying that it should be this way, but it IS this way.

 

[xj0hnx]

But even if it was 300M armed with assault rifles wtf is that going to do against traditional gunships/airstikes/tanks? Nothing. If the government wanted a takeover it could have it any time it wanted. 300M assault rifles might as well be 300M peashooters.

The military is made up of civilians, volunteers at that, if the government started attacking it citizens with fucking tanks you can beat there would be factions that would side with the people, I guarantee it.

 

[xj0hnx]

If a cop busts down your door and you shoot him you will be going to jail, even if it is unjust. Thinking otherwise is crazy. I'm not saying that it should be this way, but it IS this way.

Actually, there are protections in the laws for just that exact occasion.

 

[HumblePie]

Actually, he states in the opening paragraph that there are zealots on both sides. When he brought up the defense against government part it was an example of an equally nonsensical argument from the right, and I fully agree with that point. After reading your rebuttal to it in your other post, I think you underestimate the power of the government at this point. The government *could* go "scorched earth" since I'm sure they have plenty of bunkers but let's disregard that for now since it doesn't have to be that drastic. First of all, most people are not armed at all, many are disabled and many are young or very old, so your 300M number is way off. But even if it was 300M armed with assault rifles wtf is that going to do against traditional gunships/airstikes/tanks? Nothing. If the government wanted a takeover it could have it any time it wanted. 300M assault rifles might as well be 300M peashooters.

Okay, since we are into fantasy land, lets continue with logical discourse in fantasy land. Say for example a massive national level tyranny happened and the American people were forced into armed revolt. I'd imagine it would play out like practically every revolt against a superior armed government that has lost before. There would be high and many casualties among the civilian population for one. No denying that. But the government can't all stay in bunkers or in their tanks 24/7. There would be infiltration and assassination that would eventually succeed. Once key government positions and personnel were eliminated, the eventual fall of the tyranny would end and the revolt would succeed. It's happened in every single instance in human history. There has been zero exceptions to this. An armed and determined populace that revolts, no matter how out gunned, has always won in the end. Every single time. The price to pay for that win has always varied, and there has always been a price with civilian lived paid. Of that there can be no doubt.

The only times in history when a revolt has never won is when the population can never become armed to fight back. The tyranny only ends when the current leaders of the tyranny finally die off to be replaced by others that don't hold the same views. Of course, if the replacements do hold the same views and can manage keeping a populace they are control of unarmed, then the tyranny continues unabated.

 

[HumblePie]

If a cop busts down your door and you shoot him you will be going to jail, even if it is unjust. Thinking otherwise is crazy. I'm not saying that it should be this way, but it IS this way.

Incorrect. Illinois, I think it was that state if memory serves me, actually tried to put into the law books making it illegal to shoot a cop that illegally entered into a person's home. Not only was such law completely overruled as unconstitutional, the law was put in that is was always legal to shoot any government representative that enters onto a person's property illegally. The key point is that the person(s) presenting themselves as a government official be there illegally.

 

[dank69]

Okay, since we are into fantasy land, lets continue with logical discourse in fantasy land. Say for example a massive national level tyranny happened and the American people were forced into armed revolt. I'd imagine it would play out like practically every revolt against a superior armed government that has lost before. There would be high and many casualties among the civilian population for one. No denying that. But the government can't all stay in bunkers or in their tanks 24/7. There would be infiltration and assassination that would eventually succeed. Once key government positions and personnel were eliminated, the eventual fall of the tyranny would end and the revolt would succeed. It's happened in every single instance in human history. There has been zero exceptions to this. An armed and determined populace that revolts, no matter how out gunned, has always won in the end. Every single time. The price to pay for that win has always varied, and there has always been a price with civilian lived paid. Of that there can be no doubt.

The only times in history when a revolt has never won is when the population can never become armed to fight back. The tyranny only ends when the current leaders of the tyranny finally die off to be replaced by others that don't hold the same views. Of course, if the replacements do hold the same views and can manage keeping a populace they are control of unarmed, then the tyranny continues unabated.

Tell that to Native Americans. Or Mayans. You vastly underestimate how outgunned we are at this point. You aren't even taking into consideration chemical weapons. The American military could effectively exterminate the entire citizenship in a matter of weeks, if not days. The only thing they would have to worry about is their own dissenters.

 

[dank69]

Incorrect. Illinois, I think it was that state if memory serves me, actually tried to put into the law books making it illegal to shoot a cop that illegally entered into a person's home. Not only was such law completely overruled as unconstitutional, the law was put in that is was always legal to shoot any government representative that enters onto a person's property illegally. The key point is that the person(s) presenting themselves as a government official be there illegally.

Yes, try to prove in a court of law that the entry was illegal. Can it be done? Of course. Chances? Magic eight ball says not likely.

 

[lotus503]

Tell that to Native Americans. Or Mayans. You vastly underestimate how outgunned we are at this point. You aren't even taking into consideration chemical weapons. The American military could effectivly exterminate the entire citizenship in a matter of weeks, if not days. The only thing they would have to worry about is their own dissenters.

American Military wouldn't actually have to do much, simply do enough and watch Americans kill each other off for limited resources.

 

[HumblePie]

Tell that to Native Americans. Or Mayans. You vastly underestimate how outgunned we are at this point. You aren't even taking into consideration chemical weapons. The American military could effectivly exterminate the entire citizenship in a matter of weeks, if not days. The only thing they would have to worry about is their own dissenters.

There is a difference between a revolt by a people against a tyranny, and a foreign force conquering someone else. Vastly different.

 

[HumblePie]

Yes, try to prove in a court of law that the entry was illegal. Can it be done? Of course. Chances? Magic eight ball says not likely.

Brainwashed much to think you have no chance in court? Because I assure you far more justice than injustice is done in the court system.

 

[dank69]

There is a difference between a revolt by a people against a tyranny, and a foreign force conquering someone else. Vastly different.

The only difference is in the minds of the aggressors. Listen, just so we are clear, I don't think any of this is even close to a realistic possibility. I'm just saying if the government wanted to, it could. That is all.

 

[dank69]

Brainwashed much to think you have no chance in court? Because I assure you far more justice than injustice is done in the court system.

I am sorry, but in a world where people can sue McD's because coffee is too hot and companies have to put labels on their peanut butter that the product may contain peanuts, you are going to have a very hard time convincing me of the bold.

 

[irishScott]

Actually, he states in the opening paragraph that there are zealots on both sides. When he brought up the defense against government part it was an example of an equally nonsensical argument from the right, and I fully agree with that point. After reading your rebuttal to it in your other post, I think you underestimate the power of the government at this point. The government *could* go "scorched earth" since I'm sure they have plenty of bunkers but let's disregard that for now since it doesn't have to be that drastic. First of all, most people are not armed at all, many are disabled and many are young or very old, so your 300M number is way off. But even if it was 300M armed with assault rifles wtf is that going to do against traditional gunships/airstikes/tanks? Nothing. If the government wanted a takeover it could have it any time it wanted. 300M assault rifles might as well be 300M peashooters.

*sigh* This argument again.

1. Domestic military infrastructure is heavily dependent on civilian infrastructure. See how long tanks and planes operate without fuel.

This isn't some fantasy land, this is how we won the first revolution. When it kicked off, the continentals didn't take the red-coats head-on, they besieged Boston; and it worked.


2. Look at all the trouble we've having in Afghanistan, and then consider that Afghanistan is about the size of Texas. So if Texas and a couple other states were committed...

Nevermind economic warfare. Can you imagine what would happen to food prices everywhere if the bread-basket states rebelled? If they were leveled Russia-in-chechnya style? The public would have little stomach for civil war.

3. Our military is an all-volunteer force sworn to defend the Constitution. Not the Congress, not the President. They are not the government goon squad and if asked to fire on innocents many would defect.

You say the government could, as a matter of physics, wipe out the rebellion. Yeah, for the most Pyrrhic victory the world has ever seen. Such action would also likely only spur further rebellion.


The point is, an armed, committed, organized rebellion of multiple states could quite plausibly defeat the US military as it currently stands.

 

[Broheim]

for the anti-gun, please explain to me why it is that I live in a country with some insanely strict gunlaws yet we just had the second shooting of the day and the cops in Sweden had a firefight with some armed bank robbers today as well. Why haven't legislation fixed this?

 

[chucky2]

*sigh* This argument again.

1. Domestic military infrastructure is heavily dependent on civilian infrastructure. See how long tanks and planes operate without fuel.

This isn't some fantasy land, this is how we won the first revolution. When it kicked off, the continentals didn't take the red-coats head-on, they besieged Boston; and it worked.


2. Look at all the trouble we've having in Afghanistan, and then consider that Afghanistan is about the size of Texas. So if Texas and a couple other states were committed...

Nevermind economic warfare. Can you imagine what would happen to food prices everywhere if the bread-basket states rebelled? If they were leveled Russia-in-chechnya style? The public would have little stomach for civil war.

3. Our military is an all-volunteer force sworn to defend the Constitution. Not the Congress, not the President. They are not the government goon squad and if asked to fire on innocents many would defect.

You say the government could, as a matter of physics, wipe out the rebellion. Yeah, for the most Pyrrhic victory the world has ever seen. Such action would also likely only spur further rebellion.


The point is, an armed, committed, organized rebellion of multiple states could quite plausibly defeat the US military as it currently stands.

That doesn't even really matter. What would defeat the US Military would be the US Military. What units of the US Military would kill any significant portion of their own countrymen on US soil? A % so low, and so fleeting, it's not really a consideration.

The Fed slaughter would be a non-starter.

 

[chucky2]

for the anti-gun, please explain to me why it is that I live in a country with some insanely strict gunlaws yet we just had the second shooting of the day and the cops in Sweden had a firefight with some armed bank robbers today as well. Why haven't legislation fixed this?

Do you have gun legislation tougher than getting a pilots license?

 

[HumblePie]

The only difference is in the minds of the aggressors. Listen, just so we are clear, I don't think any of this is even close to a realistic possibility. I'm just saying if the government wanted to, it could. That is all.

No not at all. And especially not from a historical context either. Every armed revolt in human recorded history has succeeded. Every armed defense against a conquering nation has not. You can not equate the two because there are vast difference between the two beyond the "mentality of the aggressor" as you are claiming.

The biggest difference is time scale. I'll let you think on that for awhile. If that doesn't spark a light bulb in your head then I'll illustrate further.

 

[dank69]

*sigh* This argument again.

1. Domestic military infrastructure is heavily dependent on civilian infrastructure. See how long tanks and planes operate without fuel.

This isn't some fantasy land, this is how we won the first revolution. When it kicked off, the continentals didn't take the red-coats head-on, they besieged Boston; and it worked.


2. Look at all the trouble we've having in Afghanistan, and then consider that Afghanistan is about the size of Texas. So if Texas and a couple other states were committed...

Nevermind economic warfare. Can you imagine what would happen to food prices everywhere if the bread-basket states rebelled? If they were leveled Russia-in-chechnya style? The public would have little stomach for civil war.

3. Our military is an all-volunteer force sworn to defend the Constitution. Not the Congress, not the President. They are not the government goon squad and if asked to fire on innocents many would defect.

You say the government could, as a matter of physics, wipe out the rebellion. Yeah, for the most Pyrrhic victory the world has ever seen. Such action would also likely only spur further rebellion.


The point is, an armed, committed, organized rebellion of multiple states could quite plausibly defeat the US military as it currently stands.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. You think the government doesn't have or can't aquire food/fuel supplies? You think they can't wipe out the bread basket states' ability to produce food for the rebellion? Cut off most supplies to the citizens? I'm not buying it.

 

[HumblePie]

I am sorry, but in a world where people can sue McD's because coffee is too hot and companies have to put labels on their peanut butter that the product may contain peanuts, you are going to have a very hard time convincing me of the bold.

Wow, I can't believe you point to those cases as your defense. You REALLY need to read up on those cases before you actually go claiming crap you have zero knowledge of. Seriously you made yourself look absolutely stupid right there.

 

[dank69]

No not at all. And especially not from a historical context either. Every armed revolt in human recorded history has succeeded. Every armed defense against a conquering nation has not. You can not equate the two because there are vast difference between the two beyond the "mentality of the aggressor" as you are claiming.

The biggest difference is time scale. I'll let you think on that for awhile. If that doesn't spark a light bulb in your head then I'll illustrate further.

How can you claim the bolded? Conquering nations have been stopped...

How can you claim no armed revolt has failed? Is this really true? What qualifications do you need to apply to "armed revolt" in order to acheive 100% success rate?

 

[HumblePie]

How can you claim the bolded? Conquering nations have been stopped...

How can you claim no armed revolt has failed? Is this really true? What qualifications do you need to apply to "armed revolt" in order to acheive 100% success rate?

Read what I wrote again. It's not a mutually exclusive statement.

As for the second comment. It is 100% true. Every ARMED revolt has eventually succeeded in human history. Some non armed revolts have, but they don't always.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by xj0hnx
-snip-
Some do, but most come from straw purchases, for which there are already plenty of laws, and severe penalties.

They said otherwise. They said most of their guns came from theft of gun owners, very little from "buys". This was from "neighborhood gangs", these guys usually never even venture out of their "hood".

xj0hnx appears to be correct, regardless of what the TV show said. See here:

Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Fern