The Gun Nuts are Right

(coffee house please)The gun nut crowd keeps their guns to protect against the tyranny of a government. The constitution gives them the right to keep guns to prevent the raise of a tyrannical government, they claim. They are right that we should all, wherever we live, fear the raise of a dictatorial government that is no longer responsive to the will and needs of the populace.I will restrict this discussion to the US though.The founders may (or may not) have envisioned an armed populace as a means of thwarting the raise of a dictatorship. However, they could never have foreseen the technological arms development that has gone on since that time. The weapons available to citizens can no longer stand up to modern militaries.Fortunately, the founders saw the need for other mechanisms to protect the country they were creating.One is the rule of law. For example, if part of the government decides that birth right citizenship is inconvenient for them it is protected by the constitution, the fundamental law of the country. Without this protection what ensures that a government can not remove anyone's citizenship? A bright shiny gun on your hips will not protect you from this.If you have $5 dollars to donate to the politician you feel represents you but across town up on the hill someone has 10,000 times more money than you and can donate $50,000 just as easily what hope of having a government to represent you do you have? This risk to the fundamental idea of the democracy of the United States of America has been recognized by honest law makers with campaign finance laws. If these can be ignored your protection from effective disenfranchisement is gone. A bright, shiny gun on your hip will not protect you from this.Another mechanism is the subordination of the military to the constitution of the US and the rule of law resulting. Without this the greatest power in the country is a risk to your freedom. A bright, shiny gun on your hip will not stop the juggernaut.A third mechanism is the separation of the various branches of government. A independent judiciary is needed to make sure that all other parts of government are not allowed to interpret law for their own ends. If the judiciary is suborned to the desires of the government a bright, shiny gun on your hip will just be removed if it is convenient for those in power.The founders understood that an capable, independent fifth estate (what we now call the media) is needed to allow for informed decisions by the citizenry. Without this you can not make an informed decision and your vote becomes worthless. A bright, shiny gun will not give you useful, true information.The gun nuts are indeed correct. There is great risk to the government by and for the people. They are wrong in where they put their faith to protect them.

Thread copied here from the The Gun Nuts are Right thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
You could have posted here without admin approval, Ned. Just Sayin... Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

Another Gun Topic?? Im guessing that you wanted to discuss the political ideology of most of the individuals who choose to support the NRA and who own guns.Thus this topic is to be focused on the ideology to preserve the founding fathers intent or whether the intent should be challenged and questioned in the age and times in which we live....correct?

and something that should NOT be right vs left either.The survival of the democratic foundations of the United States is what is at stake. Protecting the people from autocrats is what is at stake. We would hope that the right and left would both have that as a core desire.I'm saying that the folks pushing guns have a reason to be concerned and I mean that. But I can see no way that their method of protection of the constitution and their country as it has existed for 200+ years can actually work against the very real threats.In the meantime they support those who seem to be closest to the real dangers.ABE: You are right that I would like to see what should be done to preserve the union. We can still try to hope that this is not an ideological question -- don't all swear to "defend the constitution"? I am sure not one who thinks that the intent of the founders of the US should be questioned. Though I seem to see a lot of news about those who do.Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

The Whiskey Rebellion is a good historical snapshot. The fledgling US government wanted to raise money by taxing whiskey and other spirits, and the people didn't like it. George Washington sent in troops to quell the rebellion. So right away in the US we have the very situation you are describing. In the end, Washington was able to quell the rebellion and an armed populace didn't stop him from doing so.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

A right to bear arms for the purpose of countering an autocratic government-gone-wild was acceptable back when the citizen soldier in aggregation with neighbors was effective enough to field a force of equal numbers with comparable armaments. That is no longer the case in this world. What preserves the union today is the institutions and the philosophy of the society. Public input into governance, separation of powers, independent judiciary, independent press, civilian control of the armed forces and a vigilant populous organized to resist any wayward move by the central authority by using those institutions.The weekend warrior citizen soldier, no matter how many there are and how many bullets they could fit in the clip of their 9 mil and their automatic assault rifle, is not an effective counter to what would be fielded by an errant despotic regime.The only defense we have in these modern times is us, paying attention, getting informed, getting involved, voting, being willing to go to court, supporting those private groups (on the left, on the right and everywhere in between) that watchdog and court challenge every move this government makes.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.