From: dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey)
Newsgroups: dc.talk.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control
Date: 6 Jan 1993 08:42:14 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1993Jan5.193851.19612@clsi.COM> kevin@clsi.com writes:
>
>In article <1i8crvINN7du@mirror.digex.com>, dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) writes:
>>
>> You can not deal with these issues in the context os January 1993, and 
>> all is peaceful and fine.
>
>How about in the context of Bosnia. 

How about it?  Why don't you tell us your view?

>> On another note, an observation about the balance of power in 
>> the domestic US.  Comments are welcome.
>> 
>> I just spent a lot of time pointing out that the actions
>> of "the government" do not always cause or control the actions 
>> of "the military".  This is an important concept, because if the
>> military were a machine which automatically backed up what the 
>> civilian government did, no matter how horrible, then personal 
>> arms in the hands of the people would indeed seem pretty useless.
>
>I expect them to do exactly what the government tells them. The government
>is democratically elected, the military is not. If the government were not
>democratically I would probably agree.

I would guess that your dealings with the military have been limited.
Perhaps my experience in the matter will not be enough to convince you; it
might be something that a person needs to experience for his or her self.

Suffice it to say that the military is not the unthinking robot of
the government, obeying whatever order is given no matter how strange.
There is much credibility given to civilian command, but that changes
VERY quickly when the force is aimed back upon the citizens, rather
than on an external foe.  I have dicussed this issue at length with
active duty and retired military; they were all in serious accord on
this question even though the ranks varied from E6 to full bird,
and some of them are active duty today, and others have been retired 
20 years.  As I mentioned before, *blind* obedience is NOT something that
is taught in the military, and all of these guys (no women in the 
sample, sorry to say) agreed that a suppression run on the populace
would have to be really well justified, or else they would elect not
to participate, or worse.  The onus was clearly on the gov to convince
them why they should do this.  Not to say that the gov couldn't, but 
these guys sounded pretty offended at the very idea of it.

>> If, however, you are in a country where the civilian authorities can 
>> only count on the civilian law enforcement establishment, then it is
>> completely a different story.  Personal arms, an armed populace, are
>> a serious threat to civilian authority if the majority of the people
>> decided to move in a single direction.  That is just as it should be!
>
>So, you agree that if the government is not well armed the public have little
>or no requirement for guns ?

If the government didn't have weapons (and having them stored somewhere
where they can get them quickly counts as having them) then the need 
for the common citizen to have them would be diminished in my mind.
Sporting and other purposes would remain valid; I enjoy shooting a 
gun just like I like shooting a basketball, or archery.  Still, 
the constitution states the RKBA mainly, in my view, because of the 
need for an armed government to be faced with an armed populace, 
and the knowledge that one determined man or woman, with a weapon, 
is able to express their displeasure very effectively, and that 
pissing off many million such people can have nasty results.

I will note here that if you reduced "both sides" to no weapons,
and then one side (maybe the government) stated producing them and
would not let the other side (maybe the citizens) have them, then 
you no longer have the situation that you described, and all bets 
are off.  This is why the 0 level senario most likely won't work.

>> So, I think that this all makes the perfect case for the armed populace.
>> IF the point of the country is that the PEOPLE are in ultimate control,
>> then there must be the three things extant:
>> 
>> 1) civilian authority that is strong enough to enfoce laws that the 
>>    majority favor, but is not strong enough to force the populace to 
>>    do something that the majority objects strongly to.
>> 
>> 2) military authority that is able to step in and deal with serious
>>    threats, but which is independent in its thinking and control, 
>>    and which is made up of the people, and not of a seperate "caste"
>>    of favored elites.  Thus the military, through its people, is subject
>>    to the same conditions that the general populace is subject to.
>
>A vote for Oliver North ?

I obviously have failed to clearly state my point, since the Oliver
North comment is not relevent to it.  I apologise profusely.

As to Oliver North, any system will have failures; the few that happen 
should not be used to crucify the many.  For each Oliver North, there 
are a million military personnel who have had the chance to do similar
abuse of power, and have not.  You are unfair to them.

>> 3) civilian capability to make the threat of throwing out a government
>>    real.  Remember, it need not be a sure thing; too many people these
>>    days are looking for the "sure thing".  The threat must be real, so
>>    that someone elected to a powerful position realizes that they may
>>    be voted out, and if they disregard the vote, the populace  will 
>>    risk life and limb (theirs and his or hers!) to throw them out.
>>    As an exercise, imagine the Bush administration refusing to honor the
>>    vote, and announcing that it was suspending the electoral process, and
>>    staying in power.  
>> 
>> I hope that this has made my position much clearer.
>> think that through a lack of clear explaining on my part someone
>> had gotten the wrong idea.
>> 
>> Doug
>
>Crystal. But given the choice of one or the other, would you rather have:
>
>  a) A 9mm semi-auto handgun, or
>
>  b) A fully automatic assault rifle
>
>
>- I'd take the assault rifle myself, if I'm going to be fighting the 
>authorities or defending my home.

For home defense the full auto assault rifle is a really bad 
choice; you will endangeer everyone in the arc of fire, be it the 
guy you are shooting at, or your child in the next room, or the
guy walking his dog late at night in front of your house.  
If your home is a castle with stone walls, well, feel free ;-)

The 9mm, with the right ammo, will be pretty safe for everyone
except the person it is pointed at (the same can't be said of
the assualt weapon; there is no ammo for those that emulates
handgun ballistics).  For fighting the "law" the 9mm is less
than optimal, but still quite an effective weapon.  If they
come for you in your home, you have the distinct advantage, and 
on the street you can hide it, an important feature if you don't
want to give away the important advantage of being able to slide
quietly into the sea of humanity (this is one of the reasons that
the Viet Cong had such success in urban areas, but I digress).

If you want one weapon for both missions, the 12 guage shotgun
can hardly be beat.  Using shot, it can be a good home defense
weapon, though not as easy to wield as the handgun, and if you 
are a smaller than average person then the handgun is better
because you have a better chance to get multiple hits on target.
Using a slug, it can take targets at 100 yards pretty well (with 
a shot barrel, maybe less).  A Mossberg Security 500/600 would be 
good, nice and short, but only good to 30 or 40 yards with slugs maybe.

For handguns, if I knew that I might have to engage targets at
some range, I would take a 10mm with +P rounds; basically the 
Colt Gold Cup .45 ACP that I use now, but in 10mm, high velocity.
Super accurate, better penetration at range, flatter trajectory.
Black Talon ammo for home, jhp for "outdoors".

Given the strict choice, I would chose the 9mm if I thought the
main use was home defence, and I would try to get some (sort of)
armor piercing ammo (note that AP ammo is already strictly outlawed)
in case I needed to go against people who were likely to be wearing 
body armor.

If I felt that there was revolution in the air, and that the main 
threat was going to be the government, then the assult rifle might
have to be the choice.

Still, why not buy both?  I have.

>
>Kev.
>-- 

Doug
-- 
Doug Humphrey    Express Access Public Access Internet   Voice (301) 220-2020
doug@digex.com   Dialup: (301) 220-0462 Login as "new"   Email info@digex.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I say it again, in the land of the free; use your freedom of choice." - DEVO
Newsgroups: dc.talk.guns