[txsoftwaredev]

It's no body else's business, especially the power hungry federal government, to know if I own a firearm. If you want to see what happens when you disarm citizens there are plenty of examples through history. You can look at Australia during covid and the camps they setup. The citizens could do nothing. The government should always be kept in check and having armed legal citizens is a wonderful thing for freedom.

[aporetics]

How does private gun ownership check the government?

How would the government act differently if citizens owned fewer or different or no guns? Where does the fantasy that the everyone is out to get you and you had better be armed and ready come from? Cowboy movies? The whole idea of the cowboy is myth[0].

If you want to see real power hungry government in action, don’t think SWAT coming for you, look at the Missouri State Health director keeping a spreadsheet of women’s menstrual cycles, in order to make sure that if any became pregnant the state could intercede [1].

If you’re reading HN, you’re probably some kind of engineer. So tell me, how is a problem which is itself generated by the accumulation of brute power solved by a countervailing accumulation of brute power? Which then just becomes an arms race. Which is objectively insane. It is an infinite loop. How do you break it?

[0] See "This Land" pg 61-66 by Christopher Ketcham (https://lccn.loc.gov/2019018042), citing Lynn Jacobs "The Waste of The West" (https://lccn.loc.gov/92121736)

[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-health-directo...

[JumpCrisscross]

> How does private gun ownership check the government?

It raises the stakes for oppression. How would Hong Kong look right now if the population were lightly armed? Instead of a civilian police force repressing millions the Chinese military would have had to occupy its own territory. That has political and international consequences.

I believe in gun regulation. But I recognise the civic core of the opposition’s argument.

[aporetics]

> How would Hong Kong look right now if the population were lightly armed?

Let’s be honest, if they were armed and gun ownership weren’t already against the law, the Chinese government would sweep in and pass a law that day and start going door to door, seizing weapons, take the people from their families and send then to reeducation camps. It wouldn’t forward their cause at all.

The word “civic” is odd here too (I recognize that your comment is about the intent of the parent comment’s argument), because the opposite pole to political violence is… civil discourse. There is an unavoidable incoherence to the idea that gun ownership is about civic responsibility.

[throwaway0a5e]

Going door to door to confiscate people's property is far from a bloodless process.

What the GP said about "upping the stakes" is very true.

[abduhl]

During the start of the coronavirus pandemic Minnesota enacted a stay at home order. Protestors arrived at the governor’s residence armed with guns after the lockdown order was extended. The stay at home order was modified to be less restrictive THAT DAY by the governor. He claimed that the modification was unrelated, but everybody knows that’s not true.

[hackyhacky]

So you're saying that rather than communicating our will to our elected officials with ballots and phone calls, we should use the threat of violence against them?

Great idea, let's apply it in other contexts. Next time I get a parking ticket, I'll follow around the traffic cop with an assault rifle until they lower the fee.

[abduhl]

The GP asked “How does private gun ownership check the government?” The government of Minnesota was checked by private gun owners in 2020.

You may think that waiting to vote at the ballots or having your phone calls dumped to a voicemail and never returned is an appropriate response to being locked up in your own house against your will with the threat of state action if you leave; however, a few people in Minnesota did not think that it was appropriate. So they showed up and they showed up armed.

That’s their right and it’s the right the second amendment protects. You may not like it, but that’s just because you haven't disagreed with the government hard enough yet.

[hackyhacky]

> The government of Minnesota was checked by private gun owners in 2020.

Sure, if by "checked" you mean "threatened with violence." My comment is intended to question whether or not that's a good idea, by attempting to applying the same principle to other walks of life.

> being locked up in your own house against your will with the threat of state action if you leave

You mean the usual way of dealing with the outbreak of a deadly contagious disease?

> That’s their right and it’s the right the second amendment protects.

Threats are not protected.

[tehwebguy]

> How does private gun ownership check the government?

It often doesn’t even give local police enough pause to make sure they are invading the correct home in the middle of the night.

[hackyhacky]

The answer to your question is obvious: gun owners buy into a fantasy, probably inspired by action movies, that they will one day be able to use their weapon "righteously" against another human being. Possibly in simple self-defense from a crime, but especially in a poetic-heroic setting, such as defending their god-given rights from an oppressive government.

Never mind that gun owners in America don't have the organization, training, resources, or equipment to effectively combat a police department, much less the US army quelling an armed insurrection, even if their rights ever were legitimately threatened. Never mind that private gun ownership as it currently exists would never be a realistic check on any government. The macho fantasy endures, and colors so much of our discussion on gun rights.

The other missing datum from the macho fantasy is under what conditions is armed revolt justified. The sibling post mentions Hong Kong as an example. So what if, on the other hand, the government wants to compel citizens to vaccinations? Are the citizens justified in murdering cops and healthcare workers in order to avoid mandatory vaccination? What if the citizens believe that an election was fraudulent? Are the citiens (legally, ethically) justified in raiding the Capitol to forcibly overthrow the government?

There are no good answers to these questions because the justification for gun ownership is not based in any real-world conditions: it's purely a fantasy.

[Clubber]

>Never mind that gun owners in America don't have the organization, training, resources, or equipment to effectively combat a police department, much less the US army quelling an armed insurrection, even if their rights ever were legitimately threatened.

This is a common argument, but completely ignores what the Taliban/Iraqis/ISIS did to the best and most well funded military for 20 years. What the Vietnamese did 40 years before that; completely ignoring 60 years of actual events.

[hackyhacky]

The Taliban were repelling an invading army. The Viet Cong were strictly trained.

Do you think ordinary Americans have the skill or appetite to take up arms against other Americans? Especially better trained and equipped Americans?

How far do you think the Jan 6 insurrectionists would have gotten had the capitol police taken the threat at all seriously?

The argument that "America's armed forces have lost wars" does not support your conclusion that "ordinary Americans are capable of defeating America's armed forces."

And you also conveniently ignore the rest of argument, pointing out that a democratic government doesn't need armed insurrections.

[throwaway0a5e]

>Do you think ordinary Americans have the skill or appetite to take up arms against other Americans? Especially better trained and equipped Americans?

IDK. Ask the Irish.

The Taliban, VC, etc, had basically ZERO ability to mess with the invading army's supply lines or the political process keeping those supply lines open. Furthermore, the martial law steps taken in places like Iraq to stem the violence would be much more politically costly domestically. I can crap out plenty of non-US examples of this kind of thing if that helps.

This shit is all basic stuff covered in Armchair General 101. Educate yourself.

[hackyhacky]

> This shit is all basic stuff covered in Armchair General 101. Educate yourself.

Based on the snide tone of condescension, this response sounds like it was written by precisely the kind of delusional macho wannabe who fetishizes firearms and dreams of one day murdering someone.

[canberra12]

> You can look at Australia during covid and the camps they setup.

What camps? At some points, some international arrivals were quarantined in "camps" and, interstate or international travellers were variously required to isolate in hotels. The US had a range of at-home and government supervised quarantine too.

TO say they "set up camps" is disingenuous.

Having armed citizen is terrible for freedom. It means that the kind of person willing to use violent force against another person has power.

[yongjik]

Yeah exactly. Can't fathom using it as an argument. The terrible consequences of Australians not having firearms: drastically lower COVID deaths per capita. Also, no mass shootings this century.

[missedthecue]

If your government had wanted to set up covid camps, who exactly would you be shooting to fix that?

[parineum]

Gun ownership has to go into the calculus of making a decision like this. Government officials will have to ask themselves what they are willing to tolerate in terms of armed resistance. Even if it's just one loon with a gun killing whatever officials try to get him out of his house, the ends have to justify that occurrence.

The idea that the person your forcing to do something (anything) may be armed makes the government less likely to force people to do things.

[canberra12]

This is an almost psychopathic anarchy.

Sometimes we all need to heed the rules of the society in which we live.

If an elected government cannot make rules because "someone might get shot" then the government needs to control the guns. Otherwise we're all at the mercy of those willing to kill so they don't have to abide by the rules.

Government officials already need to worry about the political implications of their actions, they shouldn't need to worry about being murdered by a loon with a gun who disagrees.

[technion]

I don't need to look up what happened in Australia because I live there. The "covid camps" were illegal border crossing camps. So all an American has to do to fully understand this event is look into at US border detention and the way that guns have, or have not, prevented these from ever being created.

[josephcsible]

> The "covid camps" were illegal border crossing camps.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." Australia was violating human rights every time they made it illegal for one of their citizens to enter the country. Don't lump these "illegal border crossing"s in with foreigners trying to illegally immigrate.

[aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA]

In case anyone is wondering: the UDHR is not a treaty and does not carry the force of law.

Which is a shame, really. I quite like it.

[giraffe_lady]

What are you doing to keep the government in check currently or is this pretty much how you like it rn?

[spiderice]

There is a large gap between "I like what the government is doing right now" and "time to keep the government in check with guns".

In other words, just because guns aren't being used to keep the government in check right now doesn't mean there aren't valid situations where they could be. I'm not entirely sure if your comment is insinuating that. If it's not, sorry for misinterpreting it.

[hackyhacky]

So if an election were believed to be fraudulent, for example, that would be a legally/ethically justified opportunity to raid the Capitol building in an armed mob? Inquiring minds want to know.

In other words, can we have some concrete example when, in your opinion, it is appropriate to shoot a cop?

[abduhl]

Any time it would be appropriate to shoot not-a-cop. Cop with his knee on someone’s neck where that person is obviously suffocating? It’s appropriate to shoot that cop.

[hackyhacky]

Why is suffocation a prerequisite? Why shouldn't I be able to shoot a cop any time they abuse their authority? For example, if violence is appropriate in defending individual liberty, then by your argument I should be able to shoot a cop if they arrest for me a crime I'm innocent of. Or for a crime that I'm not innocent of, but feel that I would not get a fair trial for. Or if a cop inconveniences me by pulling me over when I'm in a hurry. Basically, it sounds like you're supporting a principle of violence left at the discretion of the individual.

[abduhl]

I’m supporting a principle of violence against police any time it would be justified against an ordinary person. False arrest where you fear for your life? Yes. Arrest for a crime you’re not innocent of? No. Pulling you over in a hurry? No.

The government wants to maintain a monopoly in the use of force and violence. I don’t think they should have that option. Call me a libertarian.