Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, so obviously there has been numerous post on DakkaDakka about gun control and the reasons why Americans have a "out of my cold dead hands" answer to any mention of gun control. On that stands out to me, and was reinforced by a placard I saw on anti gun control demo, was the this idea that you need the guns to protect yourselves from a tyrannical government... Now I will do my best but I'm afraid there is likely to be some sarcasm in this post, be warned )

So please answer me this, Just what constitutes a tyrannical government in your minds? Cos' I reckon the rest of the world has a different idea of what it means. Countries like Russia, Burma, China, Saudi, Zimbabwe, North Korea, etc spring to my mind when referring to tyrannical governments. The US would be nowhere near this list.

It would appear that in your minds that if your government takes too much tax of you, thinks about starting some "pinko socialist medical system", control your greenhouse emissions, believes in climate change or dares to ban something for your own good, this puts them onto the tyrannical government list.

You all seem to forget that you have elections of some sorts every two years, the big one every four years, restrict a President from being in place for more than two terms (unlike Russia who twisted those rules) and restricts Presidents to be US born. If all those safe guards fail then you only have yourselves to blame as you voted the buggers in (which is nigh on impossible in my mind).

Simple. Any government where I am not hailed by all its citizens as "El Presidente! Frazzled the First!" or simply "el jeffe" is clearly a dictatorship and must be destroyed.

Put it another way... do you think any government would attempt any tyrannical means if their civilians are as armed as we are?

Most tyrannies make use of large armed militias.

 whembly wrote:
Put it another way... do you think any government would attempt any tyrannical means if their civilians are as armed as we are?

You betcha yer ass. Its not the government I'm worried about. Its the people running the government that I'm worried about.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Put it another way... do you think any government would attempt any tyrannical means if their civilians are as armed as we are?

You betcha yer ass. Its not the government I'm worried about. Its the people running the government that I'm worried about.

I concur!

Da Boss wrote:
Most tyrannies make use of large armed militias.

A militia that they armed. USSR and Nazi Germany on the other hand... did everything they could to remove the guns from the people they went on to systematically slaughter.

 whembly wrote:
Put it another way... do you think any government would attempt any tyrannical means if their civilians are as armed as we are?

But why do you think your government would become tyrannical if you didn't have weapons? Last time I looked most of the free world gets along ok without our citizens being armed. Don't understand why you think yours would be different?

 Wolfstan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Put it another way... do you think any government would attempt any tyrannical means if their civilians are as armed as we are?

But why do you think your government would become tyrannical if you didn't have weapons? Last time I looked most of the free world gets along ok without our citizens being armed. Don't understand why you think yours would be different?

It's not that people are convinced the government would automatically become tyrannical if we didn't have the right to bear arms, it's that the right to bear arms theoretically makes the government taking a tyrannical turn more difficult and dangerous. It's a preventative measure. Taking a preventative measure does not guarantee that without that measure, a bad thing will automatically happen, it just makes that bad thing less likely.

Also, after having the right to bear arms for over two hundred years, any government that would try to remove or severely restrict that right will likely be seen as very suspect by large sections of the population.

djones520 wrote:

Da Boss wrote:
Most tyrannies make use of large armed militias.

A militia that they armed. USSR and Nazi Germany on the other hand... did everything they could to remove the guns from the people they went on to systematically slaughter.

So you're saying that US citizens would allow someone like Hitler or Stalin into power? It would take the majority of your Congress & Senate to allow that to happen, and if they did then you'd be screwed no matter what. That type of tyrannical power would get most of the armed forces on their side and as I've said before, armed citizens would have no hope against a proper modern army.

 Wolfstan wrote:

djones520 wrote:

Da Boss wrote:
Most tyrannies make use of large armed militias.

A militia that they armed. USSR and Nazi Germany on the other hand... did everything they could to remove the guns from the people they went on to systematically slaughter.

So you're saying that US citizens would allow someone like Hitler or Stalin into power? It would take the majority of your Congress & Senate to allow that to happen, and if they did then you'd be screwed no matter what. That type of tyrannical power would get most of the armed forces on their side and as I've said before, armed citizens would have no hope against a proper modern army.

The people of Russia did. The people of Germany did. Are they inferior to us? Are you saying we can't be fooled? Us smart great Americans would never elect anyone to office who had no business being there...

 Wolfstan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Put it another way... do you think any government would attempt any tyrannical means if their civilians are as armed as we are?

But why do you think your government would become tyrannical if you didn't have weapons? Last time I looked most of the free world gets along ok without our citizens being armed. Don't understand why you think yours would be different?

1. Ours was started from a revolution.
2. Define "free" world? Don't you really mean just Western Europe, and not even including Spain?
As a note. Mexico is in its 187th civil war. All of Latin America and the Caribbean have been under dictatorships at some point in the last 100 years. How many shining beacons of democracy are there in Asia, and how long have they been so? How about Africa, the birthplace of humanity?

 Hordini wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Put it another way... do you think any government would attempt any tyrannical means if their civilians are as armed as we are?

But why do you think your government would become tyrannical if you didn't have weapons? Last time I looked most of the free world gets along ok without our citizens being armed. Don't understand why you think yours would be different?

It's not that people are convinced the government would automatically become tyrannical if we didn't have the right to bear arms, it's that the right to bear arms theoretically makes the government taking a tyrannical turn more difficult and dangerous. It's a preventative measure. Taking a preventative measure does not guarantee that without that measure, a bad thing will automatically happen, it just makes that bad thing less likely.

Also, after having the right to bear arms for over two hundred years, any government that would try to remove or severely restrict that right will likely be seen as very suspect by large sections of the population.

That's what I'm trying to get my head around, that type of thinking. The rest of the world has had a longer & bloodier history than the US, but non of us feel the need to have the right to bare arms just so we can tell the people in power to feth off if they over step the mark. What your saying does sound slightky twisted. The people in power are your fellow Americans, they would have the same views as you, the same upbringing as you, the same sense of freedom you all have... but you're saying that these people could actually turn against you? Which sounds very odd as you all seem to have ingrained into you the whole freedom, justice & liberty breed into you.

 Wolfstan wrote:

djones520 wrote:

Da Boss wrote:
Most tyrannies make use of large armed militias.

A militia that they armed. USSR and Nazi Germany on the other hand... did everything they could to remove the guns from the people they went on to systematically slaughter.

So you're saying that US citizens would allow someone like Hitler or Stalin into power? It would take the majority of your Congress & Senate to allow that to happen, and if they did then you'd be screwed no matter what. That type of tyrannical power would get most of the armed forces on their side and as I've said before, armed citizens would have no hope against a proper modern army.

Ever heard of guerrilla warfare? It's not a new thing. Do you ever watch the news? Have you seen all the trouble insurgents have been able to cause for "proper modern" western armies Iraq and Afghanistan?

 Wolfstan wrote:

djones520 wrote:

Da Boss wrote:
Most tyrannies make use of large armed militias.

A militia that they armed. USSR and Nazi Germany on the other hand... did everything they could to remove the guns from the people they went on to systematically slaughter.

So you're saying that US citizens would allow someone like Hitler or Stalin into power? It would take the majority of your Congress & Senate to allow that to happen, and if they did then you'd be screwed no matter what. That type of tyrannical power would get most of the armed forces on their side and as I've said before, armed citizens would have no hope against a proper modern army.

If we the US citizens allowed that to happen then that would be our fault but still our choice.

the second amendment was writing when it was practical to own a gun. there is less reasons to now but it is the principle of being self reliant and being able to defend your self that is what matters today. To change that is un American.

 Wolfstan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Put it another way... do you think any government would attempt any tyrannical means if their civilians are as armed as we are?

But why do you think your government would become tyrannical if you didn't have weapons? Last time I looked most of the free world gets along ok without our citizens being armed. Don't understand why you think yours would be different?

It's not that people are convinced the government would automatically become tyrannical if we didn't have the right to bear arms, it's that the right to bear arms theoretically makes the government taking a tyrannical turn more difficult and dangerous. It's a preventative measure. Taking a preventative measure does not guarantee that without that measure, a bad thing will automatically happen, it just makes that bad thing less likely.

Also, after having the right to bear arms for over two hundred years, any government that would try to remove or severely restrict that right will likely be seen as very suspect by large sections of the population.

That's what I'm trying to get my head around, that type of thinking. The rest of the world has had a longer & bloodier history than the US, but non of us feel the need to have the right to bare arms just so we can tell the people in power to feth off if they over step the mark. What your saying does sound slightky twisted. The people in power are your fellow Americans, they would have the same views as you, the same upbringing as you, the same sense of freedom you all have... but you're saying that these people could actually turn against you? Which sounds very odd as you all seem to have ingrained into you the whole freedom, justice & liberty breed into you.

Take a look at our History. The US Civil War was fought because of (in part) a fear of the federal government abusing it's powers and denying rights gauranteed by the Constitution.

Hundreds of thousands of dead Americans over that issue. Americans who had killed each other. The same country who took up arms against yours because we didn't like the way your government was treating us. It's a culture thing. We share a common ancestry, but culturally we're extremely differant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

djones520 wrote:

Da Boss wrote:
Most tyrannies make use of large armed militias.

A militia that they armed. USSR and Nazi Germany on the other hand... did everything they could to remove the guns from the people they went on to systematically slaughter.

So you're saying that US citizens would allow someone like Hitler or Stalin into power? It would take the majority of your Congress & Senate to allow that to happen, and if they did then you'd be screwed no matter what. That type of tyrannical power would get most of the armed forces on their side and as I've said before, armed citizens would have no hope against a proper modern army.

Ever heard of guerrilla warfare? It's not a new thing. Do you ever watch the news? Have you seen all the trouble insurgents have been able to cause for "proper modern" western armies Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well, you need to take into account that a large portion, if not the vast majority, of our military would never take up arms against American citizens in such an event. We are not unthinking storm troopers.

In the eyes of the average American, tyranny can range anywhere from Hitler/Stalin type stuff to a local sheriff or judge who ignores or circumvents legal constraints on their power. Yes, this is a more liberal definition than many people in other countries have but it is rooted all the way back in the Revolution and the founding of our nation.

 Hordini wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

djones520 wrote:

Da Boss wrote:
Most tyrannies make use of large armed militias.

A militia that they armed. USSR and Nazi Germany on the other hand... did everything they could to remove the guns from the people they went on to systematically slaughter.

So you're saying that US citizens would allow someone like Hitler or Stalin into power? It would take the majority of your Congress & Senate to allow that to happen, and if they did then you'd be screwed no matter what. That type of tyrannical power would get most of the armed forces on their side and as I've said before, armed citizens would have no hope against a proper modern army.

Ever heard of guerrilla warfare? It's not a new thing. Do you ever watch the news? Have you seen all the trouble insurgents have been able to cause for "proper modern" western armies Iraq and Afghanistan?

They've caused "trouble" not beaten them. Don't forget we are restrained over there and to be honest it's a flippent statement. The Revolution worked because the whole country was up in arms, something like fighting a tyrannical government would be more like a civil war as you would have plenty of people on the side of tyranny.

 Wolfstan wrote:

The people in power are your fellow Americans, they would have the same views as you, the same upbringing as you, the same sense of freedom you all have... but you're saying that these people could actually turn against you? Which sounds very odd as you all seem to have ingrained into you the whole freedom, justice & liberty breed into you.

Yes. But the U.S. is a big place, we definitely don't all have the same upbringing or the same views, although what we have in common has so far outweighed our differences.

We also know that power has the ability to corrupt, so we want to guard against that. Americans also tend to believe that the government doesn't give us our rights, but rather that we have them already by virtue of our humanity. The government is specifically limited in what powers it has and what rights it can take away and when, and many Americans would like to keep it that way. The government is supposed to protect our rights, and when that stops happening, things are likely to get very unpleasant very quickly.

Considering the people that back these idea's wouldn't have guns in the first place, it would be a short civil war.

 Wolfstan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

djones520 wrote:

Da Boss wrote:
Most tyrannies make use of large armed militias.

A militia that they armed. USSR and Nazi Germany on the other hand... did everything they could to remove the guns from the people they went on to systematically slaughter.

So you're saying that US citizens would allow someone like Hitler or Stalin into power? It would take the majority of your Congress & Senate to allow that to happen, and if they did then you'd be screwed no matter what. That type of tyrannical power would get most of the armed forces on their side and as I've said before, armed citizens would have no hope against a proper modern army.

Ever heard of guerrilla warfare? It's not a new thing. Do you ever watch the news? Have you seen all the trouble insurgents have been able to cause for "proper modern" western armies Iraq and Afghanistan?

They've caused "trouble" not beaten them. Don't forget we are restrained over there and to be honest it's a flippent statement. The Revolution worked because the whole country was up in arms, something like fighting a tyrannical government would be more like a civil war as you would have plenty of people on the side of tyranny.

You think Americans would be less restrained when fighting their own people on their own soil, than they would be fighting in a foreign country?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

the second amendment was writing when it was practical to own a gun. there is less reasons to now but it is the principle of being self reliant and being able to defend your self that is what matters today. To change that is un American.

Depending on where you live, it is still extremely practical to own a gun and there are no fewer reasons to own one now than there were in the 1700s.

djones520 wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Put it another way... do you think any government would attempt any tyrannical means if their civilians are as armed as we are?

But why do you think your government would become tyrannical if you didn't have weapons? Last time I looked most of the free world gets along ok without our citizens being armed. Don't understand why you think yours would be different?

It's not that people are convinced the government would automatically become tyrannical if we didn't have the right to bear arms, it's that the right to bear arms theoretically makes the government taking a tyrannical turn more difficult and dangerous. It's a preventative measure. Taking a preventative measure does not guarantee that without that measure, a bad thing will automatically happen, it just makes that bad thing less likely.

Also, after having the right to bear arms for over two hundred years, any government that would try to remove or severely restrict that right will likely be seen as very suspect by large sections of the population.

That's what I'm trying to get my head around, that type of thinking. The rest of the world has had a longer & bloodier history than the US, but non of us feel the need to have the right to bare arms just so we can tell the people in power to feth off if they over step the mark. What your saying does sound slightky twisted. The people in power are your fellow Americans, they would have the same views as you, the same upbringing as you, the same sense of freedom you all have... but you're saying that these people could actually turn against you? Which sounds very odd as you all seem to have ingrained into you the whole freedom, justice & liberty breed into you.

Take a look at our History. The US Civil War was fought because of (in part) a fear of the federal government abusing it's powers and denying rights gauranteed by the Constitution.

Hundreds of thousands of dead Americans over that issue. Americans who had killed each other. The same country who took up arms against yours because we didn't like the way your government was treating us. It's a culture thing. We share a common ancestry, but culturally we're extremely differant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

djones520 wrote:

Da Boss wrote:
Most tyrannies make use of large armed militias.

A militia that they armed. USSR and Nazi Germany on the other hand... did everything they could to remove the guns from the people they went on to systematically slaughter.

So you're saying that US citizens would allow someone like Hitler or Stalin into power? It would take the majority of your Congress & Senate to allow that to happen, and if they did then you'd be screwed no matter what. That type of tyrannical power would get most of the armed forces on their side and as I've said before, armed citizens would have no hope against a proper modern army.

Ever heard of guerrilla warfare? It's not a new thing. Do you ever watch the news? Have you seen all the trouble insurgents have been able to cause for "proper modern" western armies Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well, you need to take into account that a large portion, if not the vast majority, of our military would never take up arms against American citizens in such an event. We are not unthinking storm troopers.

Did those citizens who fought in the Civil War supply their own weapons or were they supplied by the side they were on? Don't think Jethro and his blunder bus would of cut it on the front line, so him owning his own gun would not of made any difference.

History has proven this kind of thinking wrong numerous times. There can be various levels of tyranny so there is no saying that a big chunk of your armed forces couldn't be dragged along for the ride.

djones520 wrote:
Considering the people that back these idea's wouldn't have guns in the first place, it would be a short civil war.

*snort*

Okay... that was funny.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfstan wrote:

Spoiler:

djones520 wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Put it another way... do you think any government would attempt any tyrannical means if their civilians are as armed as we are?

But why do you think your government would become tyrannical if you didn't have weapons? Last time I looked most of the free world gets along ok without our citizens being armed. Don't understand why you think yours would be different?

It's not that people are convinced the government would automatically become tyrannical if we didn't have the right to bear arms, it's that the right to bear arms theoretically makes the government taking a tyrannical turn more difficult and dangerous. It's a preventative measure. Taking a preventative measure does not guarantee that without that measure, a bad thing will automatically happen, it just makes that bad thing less likely.

Also, after having the right to bear arms for over two hundred years, any government that would try to remove or severely restrict that right will likely be seen as very suspect by large sections of the population.

That's what I'm trying to get my head around, that type of thinking. The rest of the world has had a longer & bloodier history than the US, but non of us feel the need to have the right to bare arms just so we can tell the people in power to feth off if they over step the mark. What your saying does sound slightky twisted. The people in power are your fellow Americans, they would have the same views as you, the same upbringing as you, the same sense of freedom you all have... but you're saying that these people could actually turn against you? Which sounds very odd as you all seem to have ingrained into you the whole freedom, justice & liberty breed into you.

Take a look at our History. The US Civil War was fought because of (in part) a fear of the federal government abusing it's powers and denying rights gauranteed by the Constitution.

Hundreds of thousands of dead Americans over that issue. Americans who had killed each other. The same country who took up arms against yours because we didn't like the way your government was treating us. It's a culture thing. We share a common ancestry, but culturally we're extremely differant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

djones520 wrote:

Da Boss wrote:
Most tyrannies make use of large armed militias.

A militia that they armed. USSR and Nazi Germany on the other hand... did everything they could to remove the guns from the people they went on to systematically slaughter.

So you're saying that US citizens would allow someone like Hitler or Stalin into power? It would take the majority of your Congress & Senate to allow that to happen, and if they did then you'd be screwed no matter what. That type of tyrannical power would get most of the armed forces on their side and as I've said before, armed citizens would have no hope against a proper modern army.

Ever heard of guerrilla warfare? It's not a new thing. Do you ever watch the news? Have you seen all the trouble insurgents have been able to cause for "proper modern" western armies Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well, you need to take into account that a large portion, if not the vast majority, of our military would never take up arms against American citizens in such an event. We are not unthinking storm troopers.

Did those citizens who fought in the Civil War supply their own weapons or were they supplied by the side they were on? Don't think Jethro and his blunder bus would of cut it on the front line, so him owning his own gun would not of made any difference.

History has proven this kind of thinking wrong numerous times. There can be various levels of tyranny so there is no saying that a big chunk of your armed forces couldn't be dragged along for the ride.

What history?

Keep in mind... the bloodiest wars our country fought in was between us... little perspective there.

 Wolfstan wrote:


Did those citizens who fought in the Civil War supply their own weapons or were they supplied by the side they were on? Don't think Jethro and his blunder bus would of cut it on the front line, so him owning his own gun would not of made any difference.

History has proven this kind of thinking wrong numerous times. There can be various levels of tyranny so there is no saying that a big chunk of your armed forces couldn't be dragged along for the ride.

Some soldiers in the Civil War brought personal weapons, some weapons were issued. It varied by unit and where the unit came from, and who had what.


History has also proven this kind of thinking right: see the American Revolution. There's also no saying that a big chunk of our armed forces couldn't split off and join the people who were fighting against the tyrannical government. Check out Syria and Libya for examples of that.

I have to say that what your are Hordini are interesting and valid points, it just seems odd / sad that something like this would be at the back your mind, or infact most Americans minds. Have to say it doesn't go through my mind, even though this country has had a few close calls over the years.

 Wolfstan wrote:
I have to say that what your are Hordini are interesting and valid points, it just seems odd / sad that something like this would be at the back your mind, or infact most Americans minds. Have to say it doesn't go through my mind, even though this country has had a few close calls over the years.

As I said, it's a culture thing. Our country became our country because of that militia that had it's own arms. You want my advice, don't worry about it to much. You Brits have your foibles, we Americans have ours. Lets be acceptant of them all.

 Wolfstan wrote:
I have to say that what your are Hordini are interesting and valid points, it just seems odd / sad that something like this would be at the back your mind, or infact most Americans minds. Have to say it doesn't go through my mind, even though this country has had a few close calls over the years.

Well, to be fair, it's not like most of us are walking around every day obsessing about it or always thinking in the back of our minds "Oh I'm glad I have my weapons in case the government goes tyrannical today!"

It's more like, we put it in the Constitution so we wouldn't have to worry about it, as a sort of fail-safe. Whether or not it would be effective or make a significant difference if the government did become tyrannical might be up for debate, but even so, it's not something most Americans are ready to just do away with either.

The bottom line is, we consider it a right and it's an individual option. If you want to own a weapon, you have the right to do so. If you have no desire to have one, you certainly don't have to and most likely won't be any worse for wear not having one. But it's the law-abiding individual's right to decide to have one or not, not the government's.

 Hordini wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
I have to say that what your are Hordini are interesting and valid points, it just seems odd / sad that something like this would be at the back your mind, or infact most Americans minds. Have to say it doesn't go through my mind, even though this country has had a few close calls over the years.

Well, to be fair, it's not like most of us are walking around every day obsessing about it or always thinking in the back of our minds "Oh I'm glad I have my weapons in case the government goes tyrannical today!"

It's more like, we put it in the Constitution so we wouldn't have to worry about it, as a sort of fail-safe. Whether or not it would be effective or make a significant difference if the government did become tyrannical might be up for debate, but even so, it's not something most Americans are ready to just do away with either.

The bottom line is, we consider it a right and it's an individual option. If you want to own a weapon, you have the right to do so. If you have no desire to have one, you certainly don't have to and most likely won't be any worse for wear not having one. But it's the law-abiding individual's right to decide to have one or not, not the government's.

Exactly. Its also like the amendment against quartering troops. Its not really an issue, but at one time it was and I like not having redcoats in my kitchen. Their horrible dental work scares the wiener dogs

 Wolfstan wrote:
I have to say that what your are Hordini are interesting and valid points, it just seems odd / sad that something like this would be at the back your mind, or infact most Americans minds. Have to say it doesn't go through my mind, even though this country has had a few close calls over the years.

Wolfie... I'm going to "pull a whembly" here...

Read the following to get an idea where we're coming from:
If It’ll Save One Life...

 Wolfstan wrote:
They've caused "trouble" not beaten them. Don't forget we are restrained over there and to be honest it's a flippent statement. The Revolution worked because the whole country was up in arms, something like fighting a tyrannical government would be more like a civil war as you would have plenty of people on the side of tyranny.

Actually, less than half of "Americans" sided with the revolutionary forces. The majority were neutral. Loyalists accounted for around 20% to 30%, and were mostly concentrated in New England. The Revolution was basically a minority.