Disregarding questions of personal defense, crime, hunting, etc., something that never made sense to me...
I had a roommate--a hippie, no less--who insisted that people needed guns in order to defend themselves against the government. The United States government. Aside from the fact that the level of paranoia involved in this viewpoint--that the government is just waiting to kill us all, and they will if we don't have our guns--I have to ask one thing:
Do you really thing your weapon--be it a shotgun or an automatic weapon, or even a small stockpile of weapons--do you really think that with these things you can take on the United States Armed Forces? Do you really think you're going to win in a battle between you and the Army-Marines-Navy-Airforce-Coast Guard-National Guard? If it's so easy to defend or conquer, then why Waco? Why Ruby Ridge? Why any of these things? If it's so easy, why doesn't it work with the IRA? (Admittedly a different issue, but I'm talking about small groups taking on a large government.)
The United States won its independence from the UK because:
- We were 3000 miles away from the country (United Kingdom)
- The UK did not send its whole army over here, being occupied with the rest of its empire
- We had a lot of help from the French towards the end of the war--which is why there was an end to the war.
The fact that a bunch of farmers had some shotguns did not turn the war to our favor. We're lucky Washington whipped them into a real army, but that's besides the point. We were lucky. It's as simple as that.
And so, I find the notion of "the right to bear arms" as ridiculous, in the context of a defensive measure against the US government. Because frankly, if you disobey, they'll just kill you anyway. There aren't enough of you out there to take on a military with the technology and destructive skills of the US.
Your thoughts?
However, if you're talking about the right to bear my arms by wearing sleeveless shirts, cool. I dig that.
cordelia:
I am repeating an argument that several people have made to me--regarding not the police, but the federal, state, local government, which while may include the police is not exclusive. At any rate, the police do not view it this way--this is not a case of mutually assured destruction working to prevent destruction. The destruction is already happening. Cops aren't about to not shoot someone because they might have a gun. They shoot you if you might have a gun. What I'm arguing is the futility of defense against large, organized, well-armed groups, such as the police, the armed forces, whatever. Individual citizens or even small bands of citizens cannot defend themselves against these groups through the use of firearms. They are killed outright. And what good is that?