Gun Control, Military Power and Democracy

There is a reason Athens was the world's first democracy. The hoplite army was made up of citizen soldiers, meaning that unlike other nations/city-states/kingdoms, the state did not have a monopoly on violence. Whenever the people have military power, they have to be given a political dividend, or they will take one. This is quite likely one of the main reasons that America became a democracy, instead of a Roman style republic, where only the wealthy elite would have any political power. Perhaps making military service similar to jury duty would be preferable to having a professional standing army in a democracy. Gun control opponents would have us believe that an armed population is the answer to government tyranny, but does anyone actually think that people with rifles and shotguns could stand up to the American military should it be used to suppress democracy ( in America) at some point in the future?

Fryan wrote

but does anyone actually think that people with rifles and shotguns could stand up to the American military should it be used to suppress democracy ( in America) at some point in the future?

I certainly don't. As a society gets richer the problem of finding people willing to die for their country becomes more and more difficult and lately some of the recruitment practices have been kind of sleazy. I think compulsory military service, as they have in Isreal, might be the only answer.

Looking at New Orleans, I don't think Americans being too rich is why it's hard to find people to fill the ranks.

[Rhinoqulous]

Fryan wrote

This is quite likely one of the main reasons that America became a democracy, instead of a Roman style republic, where only the wealthy elite would have any political power.

:lol::lol::lol:

So... are you saying that it's not the wealthy elite that hold the political power in America (or at least the vast majority of power)?

switzerland has mandatory military service and every man goes home with a rifle and the knowledge to use it....they have like ZERO break and enters there and very little crime.....basically the whole country is a reserve army.

Rhinoqulous wrote

:lol::lol::lol:

So... are you saying that it's not the wealthy elite that hold the political power in America (or at least the vast majority of power)?

I said "became a democracy", not "still is a democracy", or "remains, and always has been, an exemplary democracy" ;)

darwinfish wrote

switzerland has mandatory military service and every man goes home with a rifle and the knowledge to use it....they have like ZERO break and enters there and very little crime.....basically the whole country is a reserve army.

Switzerland is a small and yet very wealthy nation. I believe most countries would find it prohibitively expensive to train and equip the entire population as a military force. Israel for instance can only afford their insanely powerful military ( 4th most powerful army in the world I recall hearing) because of the generosity of the American tax-payers who provide billions of dollars in military aid to them every year.
Personally, I like the idea of a draft. Random selection of eligible citizens would keep the military in the hands of the people, while not draining funds from social spending.

[Sternwallow]

...does anyone actually think that people with rifles and shotguns could stand up to the American military should it be used to suppress democracy...

An armed society is a polite society. If you can be shot for a tiny insult, you will moderate your speech.
Heinlein advocated ("Starship Troopers") a voluntary army whereby one earned the right to citizenship as opposed to just being a resident. He thought the right to vote would better reside in the hands of those who had committed themselves and their lives to their country.
The constitution specified the right to bear arms to protect the populace from the government, not for sport hunting alone. It follows then that the permitted calibre, rate-of-fire, magazine capacity etc should include the best the army can carry just as it was for American insurgents in the revolution. Where's my C-4?

Sternwallow wrote

An armed society is a polite society. If you can be shot for a tiny insult, you will moderate your speech.
Heinlein advocated ("Starship Troopers") a voluntary army whereby one earned the right to citizenship as opposed to just being a resident. He thought the right to vote would better reside in the hands of those who had committed themselves and their lives to their country.
The constitution specified the right to bear arms to protect the populace from the government, not for sport hunting alone. It follows then that the permitted calibre, rate-of-fire, magazine capacity etc should include the best the army can carry just as it was for American insurgents in the revolution. Where's my C-4?

America is an armed society. Are you trying to claim America is a yardstick for polite society? :P

maybe a draft is ok if you don't actually plan on having anyone die!

darwinfish wrote

maybe a draft is ok if you don't actually plan on having anyone die!

eh?

[Sternwallow]

Fryan wrote

America is an armed society. Are you trying to claim America is a yardstick for polite society?

There are many guns in America, some of them legal. America is not so armed that subway passengers can protect themselves from criminals. According to several news reports, when a regullar subway passenger was arrested for carrying a weapon, overall violence on the subway took a major hit as would-be shooters decided their hide was worth more than a few wallets. So, no, I do not claim America is particularly polite.

A lot of people were armed in the Wild West, didn't make it a particularly safe time and place to be in.

[Sternwallow]

Fryan wrote

A lot of people were armed in the Wild West, didn't make it a particularly safe time and place to be in.

The towns with few guns were the most likely to be taken over by gangs according to John Ford.
Would you call a man across the table from you a card cheat if you knew that he was packing?

Fryan wrote

but does anyone actually think that people with rifles and shotguns could stand up to the American military should it be used to suppress democracy ( in America) at some point in the future?

Yes, yes I do. What you have to remember, while America has a very powerful and expensive army, we have a very small army compared to our population. (56th largest per capita, slightly more then 4.5 military personal per 1000 US citizens) Mind you, many many Military personal are not combat personal also. So even, on a very generous scale of 3/4th of the military being combat personal, and only 1/10th of the citizens having and being able to fire a gun. Armed citizens out number our Military 30 to 1. That is the very most generous you can be, It's probably more like 50 to 1 or 100 to 1. It doesn't matter how many tanks they have at that point, they'd be fighting a guerrilla vastly outnumbered in hostile terrian. (Esspecially the forests and mountains of the west coast) Look how much trouble they have in Iraq, vs a much much smaller force in a much less treacherous enviroment (The desert is flat and wide open, aside from the sparsely populated Great Plains, the US is not)

If you have a fear that your government is going to surpress your rights, the only rational position to have would be less gun control, not more.