Even more ridiculous – and I am sorry to have to say it, because the person who has said it most frequently is (thus far) a friend of mine: sorry, johncwright – is the argument that “an armed citizenry is a defence against tyranny.” This would mean that, given that gun ownership is far more widespread in Muslim and especially Arab countries than in western Europe, Europeans are less free than Arabs. At which point, since prejudice reinforces prejudice, I can imagine that a certain kind of American will be willing to argue that the Europeans, under their terrible Socialist tyrannies, are, if not less free, certainly no more free than the citizens of Lybia or Syria.
Well, while I wouldn't go that far, as a recent ex-Briton, I would certainly argue that I'm significantly more free now in Wichita, KS, than I was back under Tony Blair's stifling nanny-state, and I certainly feel vastly more free. But I certainly wouldn't claim that Europeans have anything like the freedom-deficity of Syrians, no.
But here would be my response. The claim is that an armed citizenry is a defense against tyranny, not that an armed citizenry is a guarantor against tyranny. An armed citizenry that perceives itself as a free people has the capability of defending itself when the tyrant's men come to knock on their doors in the middle of the night, but that's all it is, a capability.
If people don't believe themselves free and have the appropriate attitudes and education to back it up, as I would probably claim in the Middle East case, then guns won't help them, but nor will anything else. If you've got manacles in your head, then there's no use in having the key for the ones on your wrists, if you follow me.
(This is, to refer back to the Booth, Oswald, etc. examples above, the opposite failing.)
Regarding the capability of an armed citizenry to resist a tyrannical government - and here I must be short, as my time is running low - I would agree, certainly, that individual citizens armed with personal weapons would not have the capacity to take the battle to the armed forces of a tyrannical government directly. However, rather, I think the common theory is that they can make it impossible for such a government to govern effectively - the notion is that as long as its agents can't operate without needing the armed forces to protect them and that it's losing people every time they stick their noses out of doors without such protection, their regime will be ineffective, expensive, and more impotent than it can afford to be, and quite possibly tottering. Which probably does take a more pervasive and determined resistance than is usually managed, historically, so I wouldn't count on it myself, but it doesn't depend on being able to defeat armed forces in anything like a fair fight, or indeed at all.
And now, I must get back to work, so I must leave further thoughts on the capabilities of an armed citizenry and the strict interpretation of the Second Amendment to other minds, alas.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 04:28 pm (UTC)Well, while I wouldn't go that far, as a recent ex-Briton, I would certainly argue that I'm significantly more free now in Wichita, KS, than I was back under Tony Blair's stifling nanny-state, and I certainly feel vastly more free. But I certainly wouldn't claim that Europeans have anything like the freedom-deficity of Syrians, no.
But here would be my response. The claim is that an armed citizenry is a defense against tyranny, not that an armed citizenry is a guarantor against tyranny. An armed citizenry that perceives itself as a free people has the capability of defending itself when the tyrant's men come to knock on their doors in the middle of the night, but that's all it is, a capability.
If people don't believe themselves free and have the appropriate attitudes and education to back it up, as I would probably claim in the Middle East case, then guns won't help them, but nor will anything else. If you've got manacles in your head, then there's no use in having the key for the ones on your wrists, if you follow me.
(This is, to refer back to the Booth, Oswald, etc. examples above, the opposite failing.)
Regarding the capability of an armed citizenry to resist a tyrannical government - and here I must be short, as my time is running low - I would agree, certainly, that individual citizens armed with personal weapons would not have the capacity to take the battle to the armed forces of a tyrannical government directly. However, rather, I think the common theory is that they can make it impossible for such a government to govern effectively - the notion is that as long as its agents can't operate without needing the armed forces to protect them and that it's losing people every time they stick their noses out of doors without such protection, their regime will be ineffective, expensive, and more impotent than it can afford to be, and quite possibly tottering. Which probably does take a more pervasive and determined resistance than is usually managed, historically, so I wouldn't count on it myself, but it doesn't depend on being able to defeat armed forces in anything like a fair fight, or indeed at all.
And now, I must get back to work, so I must leave further thoughts on the capabilities of an armed citizenry and the strict interpretation of the Second Amendment to other minds, alas.