🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1i8crvINN7du@mirror.digex.com>, dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) writes:
> In article <1993Jan2.185928.20721@clsi.COM> kevin@clsi.com writes:
> >
> >In article <1i2fatINN3k0@mirror.digex.com>, dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) writes:
> >
> >So, is your conclusion that civilians don't need guns to defend themselves
> >against the government ? 
> >
> >Kev.
> >-- 
> 
> No.  
> 
> The original post concerned military involvement making the private 
> ownership of guns moot.  
> 
> In a situation where the government vs. the populace happens, the 
> military can:
> 
> In all cases, an armed populace is in a better place to 1) fight for 
> its freedom and individual rights, and 2) negotiate its terms when 
> the shooting is over.  Even in the case of a military assisted win 
> by the people, that will be an uncertain time (to say the least) and
> an armed populace will have more say than an unarmed.  
> 
> You can not deal with these issues in the context os January 1993, and 
> all is peaceful and fine.

How about in the context of Bosnia. 

> -------
> On another note, an observation about the balance of power in 
> the domestic US.  Comments are welcome.
> 
> I just spent a lot of time pointing out that the actions
> of "the government" do not always cause or control the actions 
> of "the military".  This is an important concept, because if the
> military were a machine which automatically backed up what the 
> civilian government did, no matter how horrible, then personal 
> arms in the hands of the people would indeed seem pretty useless.

I expect them to do exactly what the government tells them. The government
is democratically elected, the military is not. If the government were not
democratically I would probably agree.

> If, however, you are in a country where the civilian authorities can 
> only count on the civilian law enforcement establishment, then it is
> completely a different story.  Personal arms, an armed populace, are
> a serious threat to civilian authority if the majority of the people
> decided to move in a single direction.  That is just as it should be!

So, you agree that if the government is not well armed the public have little
or no requirement for guns ?

> ....
> 
> So, I think that this all makes the perfect case for the armed populace.
> IF the point of the country is that the PEOPLE are in ultimate control,
> then there must be the three things extant:
> 
> 1) civilian authority that is strong enough to enfoce laws that the 
>    majority favor, but is not strong enough to force the populace to 
>    do something that the majority objects strongly to.
> 
> 2) military authority that is able to step in and deal with serious
>    threats, but which is independent in its thinking and control, 
>    and which is made up of the people, and not of a seperate "caste"
>    of favored elites.  Thus the military, through its people, is subject
>    to the same conditions that the general populace is subject to.

A vote for Oliver North ?

> 3) civilian capability to make the threat of throwing out a government
>    real.  Remember, it need not be a sure thing; too many people these
>    days are looking for the "sure thing".  The threat must be real, so
>    that someone elected to a powerful position realizes that they may
>    be voted out, and if they disregard the vote, the populace  will 
>    risk life and limb (theirs and his or hers!) to throw them out.
>    As an exercise, imagine the Bush administration refusing to honor the
>    vote, and announcing that it was suspending the electoral process, and
>    staying in power.  
> 
> I hope that this has made my position much clearer.
> think that through a lack of clear explaining on my part someone
> had gotten the wrong idea.
> 
> Doug

Crystal. But given the choice of one or the other, would you rather have:

  a) A 9mm semi-auto handgun, or

  b) A fully automatic assault rifle


- I'd take the assault rifle myself, if I'm going to be fighting the authorities
or defending my home.

Kev.
--