Not being a US citizen, I was struck by how many pro-gun arguments were based on the need to have armed militias should the government go North Korean on everyone's ass.

But here's my question, doesn't the US government have a defense budget of like a gazillion dollars and doesn't a "well-armed militia" have a budget of, like, the corner deli? Do you honestly believe that a well-armed militia could really take out the US government's ass? I'm guessing when the constitution was framed, a group of men with a lot of guns could put up a decent fight. But now? I'd say I have a better chance of becoming the Ultimate Fighting champion. So I'm guessing all you (potential) militiamen have some martyr complex, kind of like a lot of people in Al Qaeda. Or you really believe you can beat the US government in an armed conflict. Well, all the luck to ya. Really.

Second question: on a googolplex to one chance, let's say a militia or a group of 'em do manage to topple the tyrannical government. Historically speaking, when a ragtag band topples a government or monarchy or whatever, things turn pretty funky soon after. The US is an anomaly in that way. Obvious standard examples: South America/Africa. Even if you look at European or Asian history, things turn pretty bloody for a while after any successful putsch because it's everyman for himself trying to grab power. What makes you think, just because the US had a (relatively) peaceful post-revolution stage, that you'll have a carbon copy of the US circa 1789 after YOUR revolution? And I doubt 1789 was a peachy time to live. Omygawd, no deodorant!

So please enlighten me. Since I was unfortunate enough to be born in a place where civilians are not allowed to have guns.

Your question is silly.

The fact that the US. government presently has most of the weapons, including nuclear, is irrelevant. What is relevant is the ABILITY of the people to engage in armed RESISTANCE to the tyranny of their own government . . . IF that ever became necessary. Are you suggesting that, because the U.S. government is armed to the teeth, we citizens should simply GIVE UP all of our weapons NOW because we will NEVER need them . . . . EVER?

No one knows what the future may hold, or how a future government may act. Revolutions against tyranny are not created overnight, or won overnight. Revolutions involve UNDERMINING the ability of the established regime to defend itself. It is foolish for the citizens to give up the tools they might need for resistance, under the mistaken belief that they will NEVER need them.

"Do you honestly believe that a well-armed militia could really take out the US government's ass?"

well a couple of issues, the first scenario is one where the "government" collapses much like the soviet union did. the military would no longer respond to the idiots in Washington.

the morons in Washington would all be out on the street and few of the layers of protection they enjoy now.

the second scenario is one of a Marxist coup by incremental ism. what would happen at that point is the military would either stand back or participate in the rebellion. average joejoe soldier is not going to fire on his friends and family unlike the communist bastards.

the last time that happened at Kent state, the cozy little world in the government came to an end. and that was just 4 people.

Bottom line, in America anyway, I bet all those nice layers of insulation the government hacks have to protect themselves would blow away darn fast.

"Historically speaking, when a ragtag band topples a government or monarchy or whatever, things turn pretty funky soon after. The US is an anomaly in that way."

the US government is too fragmented and dependent on too many people to be ruled by a "rag tag" group. for example, even if somebody gets the "football" there are too many checks and balances for a nuclear weapon to be used without proper authorization.

the whole point is the government was intentionally designed to be ineffefficiant and slow to prevent coups from being effective.

Q1. The Iraq insurgency which had a budget of zero managed to do a lot of damage to the US military which is well funded as you say. The insurgency stopped because it was paid off and not because of a military victory.

Q2. It depends and we don't know. The guns are there to put a halt to any social experiments from those who are currently in power from taking more power. It more of an insurance policy. You hope to never use it, but it's there if you need it.

Ekdysiast,

The US military has a budget of $400 billion/year. However, 2 bands of ragtag militias managed to fight the US military to a stalemate in Iraq and Afghanistan. So yes, it is very possible for a well-armed militia to resist the might of the US military. Al Qaeda may have more machine guns than the American militia, but we have more precision marksmen on our side, so I'd say we'd be roughly equal.

The key is not to prevail against the US military in a stand up, desert warfare. If you take away the airplanes, tanks, and howitzers, the US military is not really built for a fight "amongst the people". A militia, of the people and for the people, work to limit the ability of the US military to coerce the population. It is a game of chicken, where the militia is betting the US Army will not slaughter innocent civilians on the street for no reason.

2nd question regarding the chaos post-revolution: Yes, there is often chaos after the revolution. However, if you look at it closely, what really happens is that there were locations of chaos, but the rest of the country were fairly placid. If you were a foreigner with no defense against the bandits, of course you'd be screwed. But the locals were not dying from street battles by the thousands, either.

And this "chaos" post-revolution is one more reason the common people need guns. If firearm ownership is not widespread antebellum, then only the bandits and thugs will be well-armed post-revolution. As a city-resident, how will you defend yourself and your family from the criminals post-revolution? As a village, how can you defend your hamlet from the gangs?

The key take away point is this: A gun is an equalizer. The strong will always bully the weak, regardless of guns. However, the weak with a gun stands a fighting chance against the bullies. Both sides having guns means they both stand a chance of injury, a Mutually Assured Destruction, if you will.

We cannot prevent the criminals from obtaining guns, because that technological genie is already out of the bottle. So we have to make sure that the law-abiding have a fighting chance against the criminals. It's the inevitable outcome of this game theory scenario.

ekdysiast:

Not being a US citizen, I was struck by how many pro-gun arguments were based on the need to have armed militias should the government go North Korean on everyone's ass.

But here's my question, doesn't the US government have a defense budget of like a gazillion dollars and doesn't a "well-armed militia" have a budget of, like, the corner deli? Do you honestly believe that a well-armed militia could really take out the US government's ass? I'm guessing when the constitution was framed, a group of men with a lot of guns could put up a decent fight. But now? I'd say I have a better chance of becoming the Ultimate Fighting champion. So I'm guessing all you (potential) militiamen have some martyr complex, kind of like a lot of people in Al Qaeda. Or you really believe you can beat the US government in an armed conflict. Well, all the luck to ya. Really.

Second question: on a googolplex to one chance, let's say a militia or a group of 'em do manage to topple the tyrannical government. Historically speaking, when a ragtag band topples a government or monarchy or whatever, things turn pretty funky soon after. The US is an anomaly in that way. Obvious standard examples: South America/Africa. Even if you look at European or Asian history, things turn pretty bloody for a while after any successful putsch because it's everyman for himself trying to grab power. What makes you think, just because the US had a (relatively) peaceful post-revolution stage, that you'll have a carbon copy of the US circa 1789 after YOUR revolution? And I doubt 1789 was a peachy time to live. Omygawd, no deodorant!

So please enlighten me. Since I was unfortunate enough to be born in a place where civilians are not allowed to have guns.

ekdysiast,

The "US government" consists of people. For a government to brutalize it's citizens it is necessary to get many people "in line" with the plan (like soldiers and police). To do that requires an enormous amount of rationalization, denial, and delusion. Soldier-thugs have to be convinced they're "doing the right thing," and that it's for "everyone's good."

Well, the one thing that can sweep away rationalizations and the rest is REALITY. People shooting back is an eye-opening reality. It's one thing for a bunch of young soldiers to be brain-washed; and it's another to have soldiers shooting at civilians--while the soldiers try to maintain the delusion that they're "helping civilians."

Another way to look at it: American soldiers in Iraq have suffered BY FAR the worst psychological problems from those of any war or US involvement. Why? Because having random civilians shooting at you is deeply unsettling--and tends to break down the image that the soldier is there to "help the civilian population."

Just one obvious rebuttal regarding the examples of Iraq/Afghan insurgent groups holding up well against the US government: those guys are still up against a government that ostensibly tries to uphold humanitarian ideals. I'm talking about rising up against a government where those ideals have been severely compromised (to, let's say, Stalin era USSR or present day North Korea). I doubt a government like that would mind blowing up a few women and children to get at the meat.

Say you're cooped up somewhere so that you're hard to bomb and whatnot. If I were a supreme ruler that didn't give a rat's ass about international law or collateral damage, I'd probably use some chemical/biological weapon to just wipe out the area. How are you going to fight against a government like that? And hypothetically, if the US had decided to just nuke or chemically treat Iraq, the insurgency wouldn't have stood a chance (and apparently a strategy that some morally bankrupt Americans seem to share. It's a reprehensible refrain I've often heard repeated by guys and gals on the street being interviewed on news channels in the US).

Anyway, why are you people living like it's the end of times or something. You remind me of millenarians. Read some history. Be glad you have running water and a toilet in your house. And all your teeth.

Q1: As every guerrilla leader since (to use an American example) George Washington has shown "not losing" is often enough to "win". If the costs of a war are greater than the potential benefits, people and governments stop. That basically defines every Indian war and reneged upon treaty in the history of the US. If the land was worthwhile to take, it got taken. Basically, no one needs to blow up the death star to gain Tatooine freedom. Luke only had to raise the question "How many stormtroopers are worth some womprats and sand". From a global view, the US has had the largest economy every year since 1945 by a large margin and yet we "lose" a lot of wars.

Q2: Yes, having a civil war sucks. The only ones that are moderately tolerable occur when the government becomes so decrepit that more-or-less everyone flips at the same time. Other than the one-time fall of communism those types of revolutions seem pretty rare. In any case, that is not the point. Revolutions occur when the alternative is intolerable, so the question that gets answered (in your manichean proposition) is: Will it suck more or less to have a revolution?

As other posters have pointed out, that is a false choice. Faced with the possibility of armed opposition, governments behave differently. Consider the treatment of the Irish by the British during the famine, the Armenian genocide of 1915-16, Stalin's suppression of the Chetniks, the German Holocaust, the Cambodian killing fields, and Rwanda massacres. Would any of them have occured if their victims had been able to mount an armed resistance? Bosnia was messy and ugly and had mutual atrocities. However, would the world be a better place if we were lamenting the extinction of either the Bosnians, Serbs or Croats? Certainly it would not be for whichever group was unfortunate enough to be unarmed. As messy as it was and is, things have eventually settled down and the killing stopped. I agree that the solution is far worse than peaceable coexistence, but it is better than genocide.

While I would like to say that my government would never do "X" it has only be been a little over a century since Wounded Knee, a little under 70 years since the Japanese-American internment, around 50 since the last (local) government sponsored violence on blacks, 25 years since Philadelphia bombed M.O.V.E and 15 since the armed raid on the Branch Davidians.

I think you are myopically focusing on worst cases and ignoring the full spectrum of possible trouble. If I follow your logic, since I can do nothing about a chainsaw to the throat, I should not bother to wear safety glasses while cutting firewood (all the while being thankful for internal combustion engine).

I get the sense you would like to argue with some kind of straw man survivalist you have built up in your head.

I grant that my argument is based on strawmen. But your comparison of government to a chainsaw doesn't really hold water either.

Anyhow, I'm not at all convinced that having people with guns can keep government in check. Fat lot of good it did these people.

Ekdysiast,

Certainly resistance against an "Evil" government is more grueling and horrible. However, it has been done before. For example, the Soviet Red Army reportedly deployed biological and chemical weapons in Afghanistan against civilian locations during their war there. If it still had them, the Russian Army no doubt would have used biological and chemical weapons in Chechnya as well.

In Afghanistan, as we well know, the insurgents fought the Red Army to a stalemate, and stole enough tanks from the Afghan Army (yes, it had one) to fight the Red Army in some conventional settings.

In Chechnya, the Russian Army had to resort to its own "Surge" and pay off/co-opt some of the warlords to fight for them. Without the co-optation, the Russian Army was facing a stalemate against the militia there.

Speaking of brutality, WW2 offers many examples of a brutal occupation in Asia and Europe. Many a heroic story were written of partisan attempts to manufacture/acquire submachine guns and pistols. It really makes you wonder if they had to fight as hard, or suffer as much tragedy, if only they had more guns on hand before the war.

Regarding the millenarian sentiment, recent history is replete with examples of sudden government collapse. For example, Argentineans in early '90s certainly didn't dream of living in a 3rd world country over night. Many Thais still cannot believe the chaos in the streets today and a southern insurgency in their land. And the Icelanders are still in shock over the end of their gravy train. For examples closer to home, Detroit and Gary, IN are two prominent examples of 3rd world conditions here in the US.

The most urgent reason for owning firearms now, however, remains defense of self and family against criminals. If you are lucky, the police will show up 5 minutes after you call them. Many will take much longer to respond to your emergency. Bad people can do a lot of bad to you and your family in 5 minutes. And most victims never thought it could have happened to them.

ekdysiast:

Just one obvious rebuttal regarding the examples of Iraq/Afghan insurgent groups holding up well against the US government: those guys are still up against a government that ostensibly tries to uphold humanitarian ideals. I'm talking about rising up against a government where those ideals have been severely compromised (to, let's say, Stalin era USSR or present day North Korea). I doubt a government like that would mind blowing up a few women and children to get at the meat.

Say you're cooped up somewhere so that you're hard to bomb and whatnot. If I were a supreme ruler that didn't give a rat's ass about international law or collateral damage, I'd probably use some chemical/biological weapon to just wipe out the area. How are you going to fight against a government like that? And hypothetically, if the US had decided to just nuke or chemically treat Iraq, the insurgency wouldn't have stood a chance (and apparently a strategy that some morally bankrupt Americans seem to share. It's a reprehensible refrain I've often heard repeated by guys and gals on the street being interviewed on news channels in the US).

Anyway, why are you people living like it's the end of times or something. You remind me of millenarians. Read some history. Be glad you have running water and a toilet in your house. And all your teeth.

"Not being a US citizen, I was struck by how many pro-gun arguments were based on the need to have armed militias should the government go North Korean on everyone's ass.
But here's my question, doesn't the US government have a defense budget of like a gazillion dollars and doesn't a "well-armed militia" have a budget of, like, the corner deli? Do you honestly believe that a well-armed militia could really take out the US government's ass? I'm guessing when the constitution was framed, a group of men with a lot of guns could put up a decent fight. But now? I'd say I have a better chance of becoming the Ultimate Fighting champion."

I love this posit. It is always drug out in any discussion of firearms control.

Let's see - insurgents and Iraq, despite having no organization or centralization have fought the mighty US, UK, et cetera military to a stand still.

The Viet Cong, a force that was, in some cases, fighting with ancient weapons managed to hold offthe French, the Japanese, the Chinese and the US.

This the way insurgencies work.

Looks to me like an armed citizenry can bring about the regime change, even against a technologically advanced and entrenched government.

> you really believe you can beat the US government in an armed conflict.

The Iraqi insurgents weren't doing a bad job, I thought. Its irrelevant though - a government fighting its own people is like a company fighting its customers. If you can provoke enough brutality by a government to cause enough people to become disaffected - they don't have to join your side, they just have to stop actively supporting the government - then you can deprive the beast of sustenance.

> Historically speaking, when a ragtag band topples a government or monarchy or whatever, things turn pretty funky soon after.

I agree completely, as did our Founding Fathers. Its spelled out perfectly in the Declaration of Indepence, quoted for your benefit:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government"