Alien,
First of all, lest you think that I am a pain in the neck debunker determined to suck your blood, I want to tell you that the reason I keep up such a pace of debate here is because the issue genuinely interests me, and I have not debated this particular one before. So, if I seem to come after your every post, please don't think it's personal (because it's not). Now...
<hr>
I have nothing against militias as such; in fact I think they are rather akin to political parties. However, I do not believe that as military units they any longer wield a force, nor have any hope to in the future.
Consider the situation. Our government is a representative democracy. This means that the main issues in political campaigns are determined through the interests of the majority. If the majority becomes particularly dissatisfied with the current government, we all know it will be changed within at most two years (House elections.) Now, if the government somehow gets so out of hand as to overthrow the Republic and discard the Constitution, going against the wishes of the majority -- then they will have not just thousands, but hundreds of millions of p.o.'d citizens -- and this many people don't need weapons to effect change.
On the other hand, if a relatively small group (even on the order of thousands of people) arms itself and starts behaving aggressively against the majority government, they will most likely be suppressed by force -- similar to what happened in the ex-Confederate states following the Civil War. And this time, the suppression will be swift and brutal -- because no handgun can protect you against remote-controlled smart weapons, stealth/supersonic airborne attack, state-of-the art surveillance or ultra-high-tech infantry specialized for urban combat. If a militia group really goes to war (otherwise, what are the guns for?) -- it stands absolutely no chance with an all-out combat against the combined State and Federal forces.
As we enter a global and economy-dominated information age, war seems to be on its way out. This is easily seen from the current trends in Western military forces toward a defensive/suppressive, as opposed to aggressive stance. Businesses benefiting from world-wide trade dominate GNPs of countries; the military sector is no longer the heavyweight it used to be. As a result, economic policies dominate, and armed aggression is increasingly discouraged. Just look how U.S. is treating China, for example -- the economic sentiments are clearly dictating the policy here, despite the ideological objections from the right wing. Military forces are on a continual decline, and as the trend continues they are being reduced to a mere high-tech global police aimed at suppressing rogue states. This ought to be a hint for the old-fashioned groups that still espouse military strength as the ultimate form of empowerment.
I think it's more likely that in the future dissatisfaction with the government will be unfailingly manifested through political movements, akin to the Civil Rights movement or the anti-war movement of the Vietnam era. To my knowledge, in U.S. militia groups have not altered government policies for well over a century; contrast that with political parties and you should see that armed resistance is really a thing of the past in the first-world nations (not just U.S.) For another example, look at the Ireland's struggle with Great Britain: their militia resulted in intensified oppression, and proved a huge hurdle in achieving a resolution. Ultimately, the resolution is achieved between political bodies with international backing. If your movement does not appeal to the worldwide politicians, you are probably just going to be subjected to extreme violence like the Muslim insurgents were in Russia, or like the Palestinians were in Israel before they came out onto the world's political stage.
I therefore maintain that personal handguns (or indeed any personal weaponry whatever) are not an effective protection against persecution or control. Political wavemaking is. Armed insurgencies rarely garner sympathy from bystanders; peaceful yet determined political movements, on the other hand, usually do. So I am still convinced that the only justification of having a lethal weapon on you is for protection on the street or in your home. I do not at all see how arming yourself is an assurance of freedom from politically-orchestrated persecution.
And by the way, there are dozens if not hundreds of gun buy-back programs throughout U.S., and a lot of them are not even orchestrated by elected governments but rather are spearheaded by various non-profit foundations. Furthermore, the gun-control measures coming out of the elected governments are aimed to outlaw weapons of too much power from civilian use. For example, you probably would not object to the stipulation that ordinary civilians should not have access to nuclear weapons, or to cluster bombs, or to high explosives, or to biological weapons. These could of course all be used for self-defence, but they represent too much destructive power to entrust to individuals, some of which are guaranteed to be untrustworthy. The trick is to cut a line between weapons adequate for self-defense, and weapons designed not merely to defend, but to kill en masse. Assault guns have too much penetrating power, and shoot too many bullets too quickly, to be deemed adequate for mere self-defence; on the contrary they are designed for efficient murder, and present a threat to law-enforcement personnel as well as ordinary civilians.
One could argue for a slippery slope leading from elimination of assault guns to elimination of all weaponry capable of killing a person. And I think you would be correct. With appearance and eventual perfection of non-lethal weapons, I can see the day when civilians are forbidden from bearing any arms that may cause death to an assailant, and would instead be restricted to devices which incapacitate or otherwise reliably thwart aggressors. Until such devices are perfected, however, ordinary handguns (not of assault variety) seem suitable for the self-defence goal.
Some people are enamoured with weaponry either because of the power it bestowes, or due to some nostalgic sentiment. However, just as the principles of the Constitution (including its amendments) were crafted for its own day, modern policies cannot fixate upon 200-year-old precedents without considering the changing circumstances. The Constitution was purposefully designed to be flexible, to accomodate precisely the kind of policy shifts necessitated by the evolving world. While certain principles of the Constitution, such as representation, democratic elections, checks and balances, or fundamental rights, are unlikely to ever fail, things like the second amendment must be interpreted in a modern context; just as a court of law must consider the circumstances of a precedent to judge its applicability, so must we consider the modern circumstances as contrasted to those 200 years ago, when we consider applicability or utility of certain parts of the Constitution. Blindly following rules with no consideration for their intent is a bad policy; that's why we have separation of church and state.
To that end, I would ask you to come up with a hypothetical situation in the not-too-distant future which would have no good resolution other than that provided by armed citizenry. Can you really think of a situation where given U.S.-like social structures, private guns become more fruitful than public outcry, with respect to opposing, altering, or abolishing government policies or agencies?
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 09, 1999).]