I don't dispute that oppressive reigmes fear the people. I'm saying in the case on nazi germany it didn't make any difference. I don't really remember the original arguement without checking so please forgive me, I remember it as me saying fear of its own people shouldn't dictate a way a government acts.
I dont dislike the right to bare arms in America, infact i wish we had that right in Australia. I'm saying the primary purpose of you owning a firearm to rise up against your government if it turns oppressive.
You said that fear should not be part of the equation, which seemed to imply that a government should not be in the position of fearing the people and that it wouldn't apply anyway. In Nazi Germany, it wouldn't have mattered as the guns were long gone before Hitler invaded Poland and really started putting the boot in on the Jews. If they had not been disarmed, the emptying of the ghettoes of Europe might have taken a totally different turn and the Warsaw Ghetto might not have been an exception to the unmitigated slaughter, but the rule. In a better world than ours, the Nazis might have looked at a heavily-armed Jewish population and decided that the cost of oppression might have been more than they were willing to swallow.
History shows that where there is armed resistance to government oppression, the toll gets high, nasty, and the people that make up said government quite often end up in jail, messily dead, or both. This makes governments think twice about screwing an armed populace - which is the point I was trying to make.
As for the second item, no, the primary purpose of my firearms collection is not to conduct armed rebellion against my government. That is a
secondary purpose, should my government (heaven forbid) become so abusive of my rights that the use of arms becomes the only effective form of redress - as in the Battle Of Athens.
The
primary purposes of my firearms collection are, if use is any indication of purpose, for sport, to punch holes in paper (and wood... and dysfunctional computers... and television sets... and dead home appliances...), and last but not least for self defense (to bring this back to the original purpose of this discussion thread). I remind you that I have been in a situation where I confronted a burglar/thief and he attempted to kill me. I'm still here, he's not, and the situation would have been reversed if I hadn't had a handgun on me at the time.
Now to make this clear - this thread really isn't about gun control, and I'm partially responsible for sidetracking it. Gun control is a peripheral issue here (important and related, but still peripheral); the real issue is that of the right to self-defense and how far it goes. In the UK, they pretty much do not recognize that right (as I can attest). Here in Texas, they do - right up to the point where it is legal to shoot a police officer who is exceeding his legal rights and attempting to unjustifiably kill someone.
Texas Penal Code, Section 9.31(c): The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
Section 9.32: DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force
My point here, and it has has been my intent to state this all along, is that I believe that there is a human right, above all else, to defend oneself and one's family against banditry, assault, theft, and simple lawlessness or tyranny from both public (i.e., government) and private (street thugs) sources. I find it a shame that the UK seems to recognize all sorts of other made-up 'rights' (such as the 'right' to free housing and a lavish lifestyle on the taxpayer's shilling) while denying this one. And, of course, claiming that the government has compensated for that denial with 'adequate' protection that clearly isn't.
I used to live in a place that had similar beliefs to the UK. I moved to Texas and am entirely happier.