There are few topics as sure to degenerate into a flamefest on the 'net as abortion, racism, capitalism vs. communism, and, of course, gun control.
But if you're going to argue about (not that it really belongs in this forum) at least understand what the topic is. Gun ownership in the United States is not a matter of practicality, nor a matter of hunting, not even a matter of self defense. It's a matter of politics. Many things about the US society are designed to create a balance that keeps the government in check. One of them is is the right to vote. Another the right to keep and bear arms. These two rights have a surprising amount in common, if you think about the underlying purpose each serves.
Ultimately, no government governs without the consent of the governed. If deprived of every other recourse, the governed have the choice of dying rather than consenting. This has always been true (and hopefully will always be true); even a repressive government has a limit to how far it can go. At some point the price of tolerating the government becomes less than the price of overthrowing the government - a price paid in blood.
It all has to do with moving that line, the line over which the government dare not step. Being a particapatory democracy makes it a little less likely that somebody can "stack the deck", but more importantly, it gets the citizenry used to the idea that they can make up their own minds about their lives and the future of their society - not only that they can, but that they should, that it is their right. Sadly, apathy saps much of the effectiveness of voting today.
Private gun ownership also helps push the line - it raises the cost of repressing the populace, and hence lowers the cost of overthrowing the government. While voting makes us more likely to refuse to consent, gun ownership makes us more able to do so effectively.
Today, private ownership of firearms is not totally unrestricted in the US. Even leaving aside registration and waiting periods, you can't just buy any firearm you want; fully automatic weapons require a special federal license, for example. It's hard to make a case that the firearms citizens can legally own will protect them from the military. But mounting a defense against soldiers, tanks, jets, bombs and missiles with small arms looks a lot better than doing it with rocks and sticks. And it is more practical - most military theory holds that while all of those nifty toys may help you take ground, when it comes to holding ground, there's just no substitute for dug-in infantry.
Is there a cost to private gun ownership? Hell yes, in accidental deaths alone, even if we leave aside the issue of whether legal gun availability increases criminal gun use. But it's a price that US society has chosen, so far, to continue to pay.
The difference between a citizen and a subject is a gun.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you're going to argue about (not that it really belongs in this forum) at least understand what the topic is. Gun ownership in the United States is not a matter of practicality, nor a matter of hunting, not even a matter of self defense. It's a matter of politics. Many things about the US society are designed to create a balance that keeps the government in check. One of them is is the right to vote. Another the right to keep and bear arms. These two rights have a surprising amount in common, if you think about the underlying purpose each serves.
Ultimately, no government governs without the consent of the governed. If deprived of every other recourse, the governed have the choice of dying rather than consenting. This has always been true (and hopefully will always be true); even a repressive government has a limit to how far it can go. At some point the price of tolerating the government becomes less than the price of overthrowing the government - a price paid in blood.
It all has to do with moving that line, the line over which the government dare not step. Being a particapatory democracy makes it a little less likely that somebody can "stack the deck", but more importantly, it gets the citizenry used to the idea that they can make up their own minds about their lives and the future of their society - not only that they can, but that they should, that it is their right. Sadly, apathy saps much of the effectiveness of voting today.
Private gun ownership also helps push the line - it raises the cost of repressing the populace, and hence lowers the cost of overthrowing the government. While voting makes us more likely to refuse to consent, gun ownership makes us more able to do so effectively.
Today, private ownership of firearms is not totally unrestricted in the US. Even leaving aside registration and waiting periods, you can't just buy any firearm you want; fully automatic weapons require a special federal license, for example. It's hard to make a case that the firearms citizens can legally own will protect them from the military. But mounting a defense against soldiers, tanks, jets, bombs and missiles with small arms looks a lot better than doing it with rocks and sticks. And it is more practical - most military theory holds that while all of those nifty toys may help you take ground, when it comes to holding ground, there's just no substitute for dug-in infantry.
Is there a cost to private gun ownership? Hell yes, in accidental deaths alone, even if we leave aside the issue of whether legal gun availability increases criminal gun use. But it's a price that US society has chosen, so far, to continue to pay.
The difference between a citizen and a subject is a gun.