Gx wrote:Stay tuned on the OWS channel....
I think that's a valid point. Own goal once again. While the OWS people have apparently the greatest chance of taking down the government and effecting real change to the way the country works - they are also basically unarmed and using non-violent rhetoric for the most part. In contrast, the Teabaggers run around waving assault rifles all the time and haven't gotten a single thing they asked for. Their number one demand was to keep Medicare safe, and the people who claim Teaparty support in congress are actually the ones trying to take Medicare apart.
Josh wrote:As someone pretty thoroughly in the middle on gun issues, I'm curious if the observed trend of zero correlation between prevalence of guns and whether the society is functional or a"hellscape" has held true through other historical periods than right now, and whether it might have been different in periods with different firearms technology or economics or political divisions ?
That is an interesting question. The founding fathers certainly had an idea that arming all the men would be the foundation of security. George Washington signed the Militia Acts, which required every able bodied man to buy themselves a musket. They also
abandoned that plan after they got their asses handed to them in the War of 1812. And since that was essentially the first time they put the theory to the test, we can conclude that it already wasn't true when the 2nd amendment was written. Seriously, it was put up in 1791 and they put it to the test in 1812 and it
failed that test.
Now if you go back in time far enough, you have systems where armed populaces did their job. Like in Greece. In Sparta and Macedonia, to be a citizen you were
required to have and train with weaponry. And this appears to have worked for what it was for: to terrorize the large number of slaves and non-citizens in those societies. In the absence of a professional police force, the "haves" were required to take up bronze spears to stab the "have nots" right in the face if they got uppity.
I question whether such a job is even
possible today, and I'm pretty sure it is not
desirable. Investment bankers running around shooting poor people who get too mouthy would be terrible and I doubt it would be even a tenth as effective at maintaining public order as having a professional police force.
-Username17