RKBA, pacifism, and mortal fear

[Kaylee]

Occasionally, I take a good hard look at my own beliefs. Keeps me from getting rusty. Sometimes if you look long enough some odd ducks come out.

Premise -- RKBA is based (partially) on the premise that an armed citizenry is the best counter to a potentially tyrannical government. That the best way to counter oppression is to take it on, and defeat it on its own terms.

And yet ANY polictical power that "flows from the barrel of the gun" is dependant on one thing, and one thing only --
the fear of death.

Coming to terms with my brother's death has had me thinking about this one a lot.. how can you possibly coerce a person who doesn't fear death? Once a population loses that fear (or percieves whatever the alternative is as worse than death)... no army in the world can keep it in check.

What is the tyrant to do if a population decides simply to ignore his edicts wholesale? Shoot every last one of them? Personally?

I suppose what it all comes down to is --

How meaningful is an armed citizenry really in the face of oppression? If the citizenry was commited.. would the FALs/ARs/AKs/M40s we keep really make that much of a difference? What do y'all think?


-K

 

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, I've thought about this one a lot, also.

For instance, the primary cause of the end of the USSR was economic. Those who then tried to come into control through brute force had no popular support and the military knew it, and so were unwilling to fire on those opposed to the "takeover".

Overall, I think, the key is that there would need to be people who would be willing to die for their core beliefs. Armed or unarmed, makes no difference. They would be willing to go to the streets to shut a country down, and in large enough numbers in key governmental centers that it could be effective.

To a great extent, I also believe, unarmed resistance creates a public relations "moral high ground" which is quite effective in swaying opinion. At the same time, if there are sympathizers in the background who are capable of meeting violence with violence if the government itself begins the violence, there is an inhibitory effect on those in government. (Whew! What a sentence!)

All that said, I think the knowledge that there are indeed a few million well-armed civilians "out there" who have the ability to "just say no" to harsh edicts has its own inhibitory effect. This, I think, is the root cause of much of our gun control legislation. Most people who are attracted to government employment in today's world are uncomfortable with the idea that there are people with the power to say, "No, I won't!" and for at least some period of time, make it stick.

IMO, that's part of the reason for so many new laws making various almost-non-crimes federal offenses, and expanding the numbers of federal badges.

Were it not for fear for themselves, California legislators would not now be considering outlawing the .50BMG in that state, even though that cartridge has not been used in crimes.

Govermental people want the monopoly on creation of fear, not to suffer from it.

Art

 

[Bulldog44]

So true...

 

[John/az2]

The power is in the individual. It always has been, and when enough individuals with a common cause get together there is no force on this earth that can stop them.

 

[Apple a Day]

Your question reminded me of an image: during the Tienamen Square massacre there was one guy with a couple of shopping bags who stood in front of a column of tanks and held up the whole line. No guns, just shopping bags and a lot of guts.
To anyone-soldiers, resistance fighters, rebels, etc..- who is willing to fight, there must be SOMETHING more important, more valuable than life. For some it is honor, for some it comes down to money, for some it is the welfare of their kids. Why else would someone- ANYONE - stand in front of a tank, march shoulder to shoulder into the cannons with muskets levelled, jump out of a C-47 into the French night right before D-Day...
Often an issue comes down to who is willing to sacrifice more. Often that outlook is developed from a long-term understanding of consequences versus short-term. One of our problems, as a society, is that we seem to have a form of moral attention deficit dissorder; people can't seem to think in the long term. I am not sure if that is a matter of conditioning, that we have grown too comfortable, own too much 'stuff' and are afraid to sacrifice... I don't know. I think about it a lot, though.
Despite what some people want to believe but we know better, this is a Republic, not a Democracy. The government is made up of a few people who are SUPPOSED to be working in the best interests of the masses. A good politician is one who holds the will of the people in higher value than his or her own comfort and is willing to sacrifice according to those guidelines, much like the soldier on the field. A bad politician is one who is eager to sacrifice anything which belongs to others to benefit himself.
Can simple arms in the hands of many who are willing to sacrifice, overcome the few who are only interested in their own welfare? I think so. Otherwise we are lost.
I'm rambling, sorry

 

[gorlitsa]

Once, in an argument about predestination, I got my friend very angry when I insisted that no person could ever FORCE you to do something while making it appear to be your own choice. Unless a large man has his hand on mine, he cannot 'force' me to shoot my own mother, etc. He can certainly can make me choose between him killing me or me doing whatever he asks, but it still is a choice on my part.

This certainly applies here. If every citizen chooses to die rather than follow a certain law, that law essentially never existed.

Unfortunatly, I think there are very few people who have the strength of conviction and will to live (or die) in such a way. Most people tend to think that if the alternative is in any way unpleasent, they have no choice but to follow X law, custom, or PC movement.

 

[ctdonath]

The question practically becomes whether enough people can be inspired to actively resist long enough to overwhelm the oppressors. There are some recent studies of mob psychology which nicely point out the correlations between the ability of a few actors to inspire other less-likely actors, the ability of oppressors to respond quickly enough to quench the rebellion before it really gets going, and whether one can overwhelm the other.

Peaceniks point to Ghandi for a people's ability to overthrow tyrrany without weapons. Shooters can point to the USA Revolution where a poorly armed citizenry overthrew a tyrranical superpower.

Yes, far more has to do with attitude than tools. As Cooper notes, "a pacifist holding a machinegun is simply a pacifist holding a machinegun." Conversely, if enough people are truly dedicated to a cause, they won't need weapons to win.

Note that each scenario has different dynamics. Ghandi won because the British were unwilling to kill their subjects in sufficient numbers. Stalin won because he WAS willing to kill his subjects in sufficient numbers; ditto with Hitler and Pol Pot.

If one side has the numbers, will and means to overwhelm the other side's numbers, will and means, the former will win. There are many ways of arranging numbers, will and means - if the product of the three exceeds the product of the other side's, victory is had.

 

[Bulldog44]

Despite what some people want to believe but we know better, this is a Republic, not a Democracy.

It's funny how often I see the United States referred to as a "democracy". As a matter of fact, today I read an article which referred to America as a democracy. My thought at the time was "Not the last time I checked".

 

[Tamara]

Peaceniks point to Ghandi for a people's ability to overthrow tyrrany without weapons.

That only worked, of course, because the people he was standing up to (the British) were a moral and ethical government at heart, as well as being an open society where the people had some say in the government's actions.

I once read a fascinating alternate-history story where Rommel breaches the Suez and the British position in the mideast and subcontinent crumbled under the onslaught of the panzertruppen from the west and the Japanese infantry columns from Burma.

The story summed up how Ghandi's passive resistance would have worked with Von Manstein as Governor-General of India. "Not well" would sum it up nicely.

 

[Oleg Volk]

The reason why I have guns is that it gives the other side fewer options (leave me alone, infringe a little or fight to the death). Back in the USSR, they also had options like "threaten family members", "use torture" and a lot more half-measures which added up to nasty, scary amount of control. Chinese methods in Tibet are a good example of half-way measures.

Guns aren't so much useful for preserving the owners' lives as for denying others control of our lives and actions.

 

[dischord]

Has any rebellion ever succeeded on its own, including our own?

Our forefathers did not beat the Brits by themselves. The French navy was essential to the victory. I've even seen it put this way: The Americans did not beat the English; rather, the French beat the Germans (Hessians).

All that is an oversimplification, but it points out the probable futility and dangers of revolution.

Would you want the help of outside forces that saw revolution in the USA as a good development? Despite the anti-liberty direction of the nation, the USA still is the best hope for liberty in the world -- any outside help probably would be working to weaken the USA's ability to be that hope.

We lose on the soap box and ballot box, and we're probably done. That's not pessimism; that's simply a warning to work harder on the soap box and ballot box -- and to be wary of adolescent fantasies about taking it to the bullet box.

Revolution is very romantic to most Americans, given our history, but its typical result is death, failure and an excuse for the government to become more restrictive.

 

[dischord]

Despite what some people want to believe but we know better, this is a Republic, not a Democracy. The government is made up of a few people who are SUPPOSED to be working in the best interests of the masses. A good politician is one who holds the will of the people in higher value than his or her own comfort and is willing to sacrifice according to those guidelines, much like the soldier on the field.

Actually, that's the definintion of a good politician in a democracy. A good politician in a constitutional republic hold the values of the constitution above the will of the people.

 

[Vladimir_Berkov]

The story summed up how Ghandi's passive resistance would have worked with Von Manstein as Governor-General of India. "Not well" would sum it up nicely.

Quite right. The thing that pacifists do not realize is that for their ideology to succede, the governments they wish to influence must be fairly open and also bound by ethical rules which prohibit their freedom of action.

England in the 1930's and 40's fit such a description. Germany in the 1930's and 40's does not. If there was a "German Ghandi" he would have disappeared and never be heard from again, with nothing ever stated in the state-controlled press.

That is why pacifism is such a lousy ideology, because it pretty much depends on the state to be cooperative to some extent. The politics of force, "iron and will" so-to-speak, are never bound by such cooperation, and will succede where pacifism fails.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

The politics of force, "iron and will" so-to-speak, are never bound by such cooperation, and will succede where pacifism fails.

Not necessarily. Just as there are repressive governments against which it would be foolish to rely on pacifism, there are regimes against which violence is counter-productive. A non-violent Palistinian resistance leader would have been very effective against the Israelis, IMO. Instead, they went the violent route, were labeled as "terrorists" by the world and lost most of the support they could have expected from the world.

 

[Vladimir_Berkov]

Not necessarily. Just as there are repressive governments against which it would be foolish to rely on pacifism, there are regimes against which violence is counter-productive. A non-violent Palistinian resistance leader would have been very effective against the Israelis, IMO. Instead, they went the violent route, were labeled as "terrorists" by the world and lost most of the support they could have expected from the world.

I never said that force always succedes, simply that it can succede where pacifism fails. Indeed, there are occassions where a violant response IS counter-productive. Your Palistinian example is apt, and if they ever do figure out that they can cripple Israel through massive nonviolant resistance Israel is truly screwed. However, such resistance requires more solidarity and leadership than the Palistinians are capable of achieving at the moment.

 

[Sixgun_Symphony]

One rifleman can take out the most powerfull man in the world. Thus an armed population can very well exterminate the ruling class.

I think the biggest push for gun control comes from the fact that the USA is changing. We are gradually losing the middle class. Factories are being closed down and what were once good union jobs are going to overseas sweatshops. We have more billionaires today while much of the population has become urban working poor.

I am a carpenter and have noticed that we do not build affordable rambler style homes anymore. New homes are larger and start at $250,000.00
We build apartments for everyone below that income level.

This signifies a big change. America was a middle class nation, but we are fast becoming like the rest of the world where you have a wealthy class and a working poor class.

Thus we see more gun controls along with other cultural changes. This of course was planned by the globalists.

 

[Bulldog44]

Thus we see more gun controls along with other cultural changes. This of course was planned by the globalists.

Sixgun_Symphony, I submit the following:

We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.