Is that for the most part, they are very big on not trusting the government. Freedom of Information Act, sunshine laws, open meeting laws, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Section 1983 lawsuits (42 USC 1983, go look it up), that sort of stuff. Government is to be watched to make sure they do not do sneaky shit and trample on the rights of individuals.
But then they would willingly give government the sole power that makes all of the legal guarantees worthless: the power of the gun. This I do not understand.
I hold this belief: Unarmed citizens have privileges. Those privileges are just like drivers' licenses, governments give them and governments can take them away.
Armed citizens, on the other hand, have rights. Governments can try to take them away, but they run the risk of then getting what all tyrants deserve. When the population is armed, government has to govern with the consent of the governed. It is no guarantee against tyranny, but the tyranny has to be imposed by consent (sort of the way that Cheney has in mind) and not by force.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'm not sure who you count as "fellow liberals". One thing I *will* say is that even if every American had a gun, the result if a military junta happened and installed a dictator would be similar to Iraq during the Saddam era. Iraq was, and is, one of the most heavily armed nations in the world. Every male citizen was required to serve in the Army and learned how to fire an AK-47 and a RPG, and most households had an AK-47, an RPG launcher, and plentiful ammunition for both. Yet nobody overthrew Saddam. Why? Because most people *JUST DON'T CARE*. All they want to do is have a home, have a job, play with their children, have sex with their spouse, and just live a regular life. They don't question authority, as long as the streets are safe and they can go about their business without undue hassles.
Just look at what's happening in the USA today. We U.S. citizens can no longer travel freely about the country thanks to "Homeland Security" (you must show a government issued ID, no different from in the former Soviet Union where you had to show your identity papers), you have people getting arrested because of art projects that the Powers That Be don't like, the government is tapping your phone and my phone (you can guarantee that since both of us have criticized Dear Leader's administration), and other than John Gilmore and a handful of others, NOBODY CARES. If I talk to someone at work, it's, like, "I'm sure they're just doing that kind of stuff to keep us safe." Freedom? As long as they're free to go shopping, they just do not care.
Iraq proves that a) an armed populace is no guarantee against tyranny, and b) an armed populace can be a dreadful nuisance to an occupying force of foreigners, indeed, can render the country ungovernable and thus useless to the invaders and thus eventually drive out the invaders (much as we're going to leave Iraq some day). But a) contradicts your very premise -- that an armed populace is a guarantee against tyranny. That presumes that most people care -- and as long as it doesn't affect their everyday lives, most people don't.
- Badtux the Cynical Penguin
But a) contradicts your very premise -- that an armed populace is a guarantee against tyranny.
Um, except I said that an armed populace was no guarantee against tyranny.
An armed subject is not the same as an armed citizen; there is a matter of character and personality involved. The people in the 13 colonies who started the rebellion against Britain quit thinking of themselves as subjects of Britain, but as citizens of their state in this country. The problem is that some people (as in Iraq) did not have the will to rule themselves; they have been used to being ruled by tribal leaders and monarchs for so long that it didn't occur to them to rule themselves, especially when their religion backs up the rule of kings.
Just my opinion.
Post a Comment