Time for gun law reforms in the USA?

[Mr Khan]

thranx said:

ArnoldRimmer said:
I've often read that a very important reason so many americans advocate owning guns is that they distrust/fear their own government, and so consider guns as a kind of defense against a potentially hostile government.

I think that reasoning is flawed (as Chomsky once said in an interview "If people have pistols, the government has tanks. If people get tanks, the government has atomic weapons. There's no way to deal with these issues by violent force, even if you think that that's morally legitimate."), but even if it wasn't:

Isn't that rather contradictory with the concept of "law-abiding citizen", that mystical gun-owning superhero who always turns up whenever there is a gun control discussion?

The main characteristic of law-abiding citizen is that he is "law-abiding" - in other words: he always strictly and blindly follows the rules dictated by this very government, as stupid as they might be. If such a person turns against his government, not only is he now longer law-abiding, but probably in a rather dangerous state of mind as well.

In my opinion, advocating "law-abiding citizen" and at the same time feeling a need to defend yourself against the government that makes those laws is kind of schizophrenic. I think the driving force for such a person to follow the laws is fear.

2 points

1. I think the insugencies in Iraq and Afghanistan prove tanks are not needed to repel a larger army with superior firepower and resources. But just guns, and explosives.

2. While the government does write the laws, and gun owners are law abiding citizens, if laws start coming about that are not constitutional it is our right as citizens to defend our constition. If that means armed rebellion than thats what it means. I even think it mentions something similar to this in the constitution and with the second amendant. You got to realize the UNited States was born out of rebelling agaisnt unjust laws and taxation. If those conditions return people have a right to action.

For point one, the only reason such rebellions in Iraq and Afghanistan are as successful as they are are because we've been a bit more civilized than other occupying powers. If we were carpet-bombing cities, like the Russians in Chechnya, things wouldn't work out the same. A well-equipped State will always be able to defeat a rebellion, if force is the only factor in the equation.

That segues into point two, that politics is sufficient to defeat tyranny. The reason the Taliban endures is because of ancient tribal concerns that overrule the fact of NATO military might, and so People Power has proven sufficient in the modern world to defeat tyranny.