Re: United States attitudes towards guns and governments

On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:00:17 -0800, "Phillip E. Pournelle"
<pepourne@nps.navy.mil> wrote:

>	I think folks should go back and read the Declaration of
Independence
>before commenting on the US's attitudes towards fire arms.  Many forget
>that the reason the second ammendment was put in was so that the common
>people would be able to fight and throw off their own government.  

I thought it was in order to provide a defensive militia due to fears of
a
British invasion from Canada. If Napoleon hadn't caused a stir in Europe
at
the turn of the 19th Century, Britain might have done just that (might
have...). 

Of course, my favourite "what if" involves a story a friend of mine
wrote
(sold to a couple of anthologies, and part of a novel) where Britain
owns
Louisianna and hence what is now Western US. It involves a much larger
Canadian involvement in a US Civil War in the 1850s (something that came
very
close to happening). Funny enough, this alternative history is more
likely to
result in the NAC than our current history.

>If the
>Colonies had adopted the attitude now followed in Britain, we would
never
>have been able to throw off the English yolk.	

*L* By that logic, neither would have Australia or Canada (let alone
India,
etc.). Sure you would. And you would have had an end to slavery about 40
years
earlier, and most likely a less divisive society than you have now.

>	In the recent Russian revolution, the pro-democracy forces were
able to
>stare down the Army because the troops did not want to fire on their
own
>people.  There were enough of their own people in the streets because
they
>were armed enough to make a stand.

Hmmm... I think you're discounting the fact that most of the Russian
Army was
conscripts and not professionals, and that morale was low enough to
prevent
problems. There's also the fact that the Russian move to democracy was
lawful,
and that the anti-democracy forces were in the moral wrong. The
pro-democracy
forces worked due to defections within the Russian Army, not because of
the
arming of the people. Those guns on the streets of Russia are now making
Russia an incredibly dangerous and hostile place. 

>	The point is that many Americans take the right to bear arms
very
>seriously, and a number are willing to violate the law to maintain that
>ability.  There are a number of nut cases willing to kill innocent
people
>to keep their weapons.  The NAC would have to adjust to this American
>attitude by either winking at the Americans when they ban weapons, or
to
>leave that issue alone.

I can't see Britain and Canada ignoring the gun control issue or leaving
it
alone. Actually, there is every possibility that the US will end up with
a gun
control law similar to that in Canada, but it will take a ground swell
of
popular support, it will divide the country, and it will take at least
20
years. Actually, if you want a divisive issue that tears at the fabric
of the
US and ends up swinging it towards Jon's NAC model, that could be it. It
also
gives you the basis of Cal-Tex, where guns are quite legal and the old
US
constitution holds sway.

(Note, I do NOT want to debate gun control. However, it does make an
interesting discussion: what would the role of guns be within the NAC.)

>Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@interlog.com

"Surprisingly, when you throw two naked women with sex
toys into a living room full of drunken men, things 
always go bad." - Kyle Baker, "You Are Here"