![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jan. 18th, 2013 09:15 pmI'm going to pick at an argument that "my" side (the left) is making against gun owners who feel that an important reason to own guns is the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government.
I don't think that having the ability to fight back against a corrupt government is a legitimate reason to own guns. Without the army on the side of a rebellion, people would be squashed en mass and would have to turn to guerrilla tactics, at which point guns would be illegal and seized anyway.
But practicalities aside, it's a legitimate chain of logic to say that it is theoretically possible, however remote that possibility is, that the US government were to become corrupt to the pont that overthrow was a reasonable response. People are arguing that it is treasonous to talk about taking up arms against the government. Of course it is. That's the entire point. You'd be committing treason. Complaining about people who say that they'd use their guns in rebellion against a corrupt government because that would be illegal is self-evident, and I don't think it really matters. If government hadn't already gotten to a point where people are in rebellion and refuse to acknowledge those laws, it won't matter to them that the act they're committing would be illegal.
I think it's also a good idea to be aware of the fact that governments can, in fact, become tyrannical and deserve overthrow. In fact, being aware of that is better than thinking that, no matter what your government could possibly do, it's all ok because they're the ones in charge. It's good to think about the fact that governments are not infallible, and are capable of infringing grievously on human rights in ways that should not be tolerated.
So I don't have a problem with wanting to own guns to have the ability to fight the government under such conditions to be objectionable on the grounds of ideology. Of course it's treason. As I said, that's the point. I do have a problem with it on the grounds that by the time that point comes, guns will be illegal anyway and there will certainly be a brisk underground trade in them as there is in any illegal good. I don't think the state of gun laws *now* has much bearing at all on the accessibility of guns in the event of a major rebellion.
--
So hungry. I hope my pizza is done soon.
I don't think that having the ability to fight back against a corrupt government is a legitimate reason to own guns. Without the army on the side of a rebellion, people would be squashed en mass and would have to turn to guerrilla tactics, at which point guns would be illegal and seized anyway.
But practicalities aside, it's a legitimate chain of logic to say that it is theoretically possible, however remote that possibility is, that the US government were to become corrupt to the pont that overthrow was a reasonable response. People are arguing that it is treasonous to talk about taking up arms against the government. Of course it is. That's the entire point. You'd be committing treason. Complaining about people who say that they'd use their guns in rebellion against a corrupt government because that would be illegal is self-evident, and I don't think it really matters. If government hadn't already gotten to a point where people are in rebellion and refuse to acknowledge those laws, it won't matter to them that the act they're committing would be illegal.
I think it's also a good idea to be aware of the fact that governments can, in fact, become tyrannical and deserve overthrow. In fact, being aware of that is better than thinking that, no matter what your government could possibly do, it's all ok because they're the ones in charge. It's good to think about the fact that governments are not infallible, and are capable of infringing grievously on human rights in ways that should not be tolerated.
So I don't have a problem with wanting to own guns to have the ability to fight the government under such conditions to be objectionable on the grounds of ideology. Of course it's treason. As I said, that's the point. I do have a problem with it on the grounds that by the time that point comes, guns will be illegal anyway and there will certainly be a brisk underground trade in them as there is in any illegal good. I don't think the state of gun laws *now* has much bearing at all on the accessibility of guns in the event of a major rebellion.
--
So hungry. I hope my pizza is done soon.
