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.

 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?

We are armed as a preventitive measure. While the citizens are armed, our government won't dare be tyrannical.

So the government is trying to take away our guns, slowely but surely, under the guise of controlling homicide and gun related accidents(Of which there is strong evidence that intense gun control does NOT reduce murder rates)


The government isn't currently tyrannical, but they may be planning something in the future once the civilians are throughly disarmed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

Compared to Loyalists, they were a Majority.

Most Americans supported the Revolution's ideals, the majority didn't feel the need for a Revolution but didn't care either way. Or rather were just playing it safe so they would be ok no matter who won.

Talking of Revolution, I guess you can call it a cultural difference. Brits have Guy Fox day, where they burn in effigy a man who tried to fight his Government at the time and Yanks have Independence Day where they celebrate overthrowing theirs.

Tye_Informer wrote:
Brits have Guy Fox day...

Um...

This works as Tyranny for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

The right to bear arms wasn't just created as a means of fighting tyranny. America was still very much a frontier at the time, and guns were still needed for providing food and for defense (both for your home and community). And we continued to be a frontier as we expanded westward for many years. And the 2nd Amendment very clearly references militias: militias back then were far different from the ones we hear about today. Militias back then were focused more on defending and providing for the local community, rather than just being a political interest group. They have more in common with today's volunteer firefighters.

Now, however, I would argue that the greatest weapon against tyranny is not the gun in your holster, but the smartphone in your pocket. The free flow and exchange of information is now the most powerful weapon we have. The Battle of Athens worked because of it's time, but today? One viral blog post would be just as effective, and far less violent. I would be far less worried about government regulation of guns, and far more worried about government regulation of the Internet.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The right to bear arms wasn't just created as a means of fighting tyranny. America was still very much a frontier at the time, and guns were still needed for providing food and for defense (both for your home and community). And we continued to be a frontier as we expanded westward for many years. And the 2nd Amendment very clearly references militias: militias back then were far different from the ones we hear about today. Militias back then were focused more on defending and providing for the local community, rather than just being a political interest group. They have more in common with today's volunteer firefighters.

Now, however, I would argue that the greatest weapon against tyranny is not the gun in your holster, but the smartphone in your pocket. The free flow and exchange of information is now the most powerful weapon we have. The Battle of Athens worked because of it's time, but today? One viral blog post would be just as effective, and far less violent.

Sorry... the militia clause doesn't restrict the "right to bear arms" in any way.

Thomas Jefferson would abject to your ascertation... he stated "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

I'm plenty worried about both!

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The right to bear arms wasn't just created as a means of fighting tyranny. America was still very much a frontier at the time, and guns were still needed for providing food and for defense (both for your home and community). And we continued to be a frontier as we expanded westward for many years. And the 2nd Amendment very clearly references militias: militias back then were far different from the ones we hear about today. Militias back then were focused more on defending and providing for the local community, rather than just being a political interest group. They have more in common with today's volunteer firefighters.

Now, however, I would argue that the greatest weapon against tyranny is not the gun in your holster, but the smartphone in your pocket. The free flow and exchange of information is now the most powerful weapon we have. The Battle of Athens worked because of it's time, but today? One viral blog post would be just as effective, and far less violent. I would be far less worried about government regulation of guns, and far more worried about government regulation of the Internet.

There are some pretty large parts of the country where guns are still a necessity due to wildlife, and where people hunt for a large portion of their meat. Lots of western states with large rural populations, Alaska, etc.


The second amendment does mention militias in the first clause, but on the other hand, in the second clause it also says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I believe you both completely misinterpreted my intentions regarding the statement on the militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment. I was merely trying to point out that it is ONE of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment, NOT the ONLY reason, or as any sort of restriction.
However, at this point, I feel it was a mistake to say anything at all in this discussion, so I will now bow out.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I believe you both completely misinterpreted my intentions regarding the statement on militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment. I was merely trying to point out that it is ONE of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment, NOT the ONLY reason
However, at this point, I feel it was a mistake to say anything at all in this discussion, so I will now bow out.

That's cool man, I wasn't just targeting your post. I just felt it was generally worth pointing out, because It just seems like a lot of people forget there are parts of the US that are still pretty rugged, and bring up the militia part in the first clause and totally ignore the people part in the second clause.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I believe you both completely misinterpreted my intentions regarding the statement on the militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment. I was merely trying to point out that it is ONE of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment, NOT the ONLY reason, or as any sort of restriction.
However, at this point, I feel it was a mistake to say anything at all in this discussion, so I will now bow out.

Oh... cool man.

My bad.

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.

Could you please find a primary source for this?

I've been hearing the "holocaust would've been prevented if there were more guns" a lot lately, and it doesn't really make sense. You see, even if the Jewish people in post-Weimar Germany were armed like an American doomsday prepper, the Nazis still would have slaughtered them. It took 10,000,000 Russian soldiers & another 1,000,000 US & Commonwealth countries combined to stop the Nazis. So I would really love to hear about how a few well-armed militias in rural Germany would have really prevented all that.

 azazel the cat 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.

Could you please find a primary source for this?

I've been hearing the "holocaust would've been prevented if there were more guns" a lot lately, and it doesn't really make sense. You see, even if the Jewish people in post-Weimar Germany were armed like an American doomsday prepper, the Nazis still would have slaughtered them. It took 10,000,000 Russian soldiers & another 1,000,000 US & Commonwealth countries combined to stop the Nazis. So I would really love to hear about how a few well-armed militias in rural Germany would have really prevented all that.

If I remember correctly, the Weimar Republic started gun control in an attempt to reign in the various private armies that began to sprout up in Germany, like the Nazi SA (the precursor to the SS), but that had little to no effect. By the time the Nazis were firmly in control (by mostly political means, it must be said - remember that the contemporary German people gladly supported Hitler's rise to the Chancellorship), there were further controls issued against Jewish gun owners. But these represented such a miniscule faction of the populace that even if they had attempted some sort of resistance, it would have been crushed easily.

 whembly wrote:
[Thomas Jefferson would abject to your ascertation... he stated "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

You sure about that?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
[Thomas Jefferson would abject to your ascertation... he stated "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

You sure about that?

Spoiler:

No... but it's all good.

In fact, there's a book on this debate somewhere... lemme see if I can find it.

 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.

No? Why, because civilians don't own tanks and planes? That's a very childish view of warfare.

A couple of weeks ago, Al Qaeda in Iraq released a video of civilian-clothed terrorists running into ING checkpoints with suppressed pistols and shooting guards while they were relaxing. The number of handguns and suppressors in the US is absolutely mind boggling. If these mouth-breathing savages can do it, surely Americans can manage more inventive tactics.

What about tanks? As long as people have access to gasoline and fertilizer, and a modicum of chemistry knowledge, armored vehicles will never be safe.

 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?

Probably, they have tanks.
I always find it funny when people say how guns would stop any government from becoming tyrannical. IF they wanted, they could steam roll over us.
The gun holders are children, while the american military would be a tiger.

 hotsauceman1 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?

Probably, they have tanks.
I always find it funny when people say how guns would stop any government from becoming tyrannical. IF they wanted, they could steam roll over us.
The gun holders are children, while the american military would be a tiger.

Again, you don't need tanks to fight tanks. This is a childish view of warfare espoused exclusively by people who have never been there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgGUqHnYxW8

Goodnight, sweet tank. We hardly knew thee.

NuggzTheNinja 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.

No? Why, because civilians don't own tanks and planes? That's a very childish view of warfare.

A couple of weeks ago, Al Qaeda in Iraq released a video of civilian-clothed terrorists running into ING checkpoints with suppressed pistols and shooting guards while they were relaxing. The number of handguns and suppressors in the US is absolutely mind boggling. If these mouth-breathing savages can do it, surely Americans can manage more inventive tactics.

What about tanks? As long as people have access to gasoline and fertilizer, and a modicum of chemistry knowledge, armored vehicles will never be safe.

Your backyard-Rambo dreams are the sort of fantasy that is common to children playing soldier with sticks. Not to mention your hubris in believing those people to be "mouth-breathing savages". Even beyond that, you give the impression that you have no idea what a suppressor actually does.

 azazel the cat wrote:

NuggzTheNinja 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.

No? Why, because civilians don't own tanks and planes? That's a very childish view of warfare.

A couple of weeks ago, Al Qaeda in Iraq released a video of civilian-clothed terrorists running into ING checkpoints with suppressed pistols and shooting guards while they were relaxing. The number of handguns and suppressors in the US is absolutely mind boggling. If these mouth-breathing savages can do it, surely Americans can manage more inventive tactics.

What about tanks? As long as people have access to gasoline and fertilizer, and a modicum of chemistry knowledge, armored vehicles will never be safe.

Your backyard-Rambo dreams are the sort of fantasy that is common to children playing soldier with sticks. Not to mention your hubris in believing those people to be "mouth-breathing savages". Even beyond that, you give the impression that you have no idea what a suppressor actually does.

Yeah, perhaps. Apparently the IDF promotes you to sergeant for playing soldier with sticks, though.

The U.S would never fall victim to a country-spanning internecine war, though, not nowadays at least. If conditions resulted in severe discontent it would almost certainly be for socio-economic reasons; a problem that would be in the governments interest to alleviate not ignore.

As for the whole gun issue, it is what it is, the damage is done. The notion of so many people being armed is very disturbing to me; however, if I lived in the U.S I would definitely own one or two guns for home defence...but only because America is knee deep in the damn things.

The days of Treblinka are simply too ghastly to ever be a reality in the U.S...

..I hope...

The average gun-owner is a conservative. And clearly they are protecting freedom, because they've prevented all the things that they're against, such as....

1) A KENYEN BEING ELECTED USING WELFARE BRIBES
2) COMMIE SOCIALISTS CONQUERING HEALTHCARE
3) WOMIN GOING TO THE FRONTLINES IN THE ARMY
4) DEM GAYS BEIN ALLOWED IN THE ARMY
5) TAXES GOIN UP ON THE JOB CREATORS
6) THAT KENYEN BEING REELECTED

The average disgruntled person isn't motivated enough to risk their life fighting a very powerful government with nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, battleships, stealth bombers, tanks, a lot of soldiers, and drone-fighters.

Yeah, if everyone in the US revolted, the government would certainly be overthrown. But, if you look at statistics regarding revolutions, the average person doesn't just decide to go out in the street and start shooting soldiers. Realistically, the average person decides to lay low.

Tye_Informer wrote:
Talking of Revolution, I guess you can call it a cultural difference. Brits have Guy Fox day, where they burn in effigy a man who tried to fight his Government at the time and Yanks have Independence Day where they celebrate overthrowing theirs.

This is the funniest post in the thread.

 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?

Of course they would. They'd use the armed populace to round up whatever group they've decided to demonise. And if they decided to demonise you, an armed resistance just gives the government justification (in the eyes of the international community) for escalating the use of force.

Tell me, do you think the military, acting on behalf of the government, would be happy to fire on their own civilians, their own people? Do you think having those people return fire would make any difference at all?

I think it would. I think it would harden their hearts to you, and make them more determined to destroy you. I think peaceful resistance is the only valid tool to resisting a tyrannical government, and anyone thinking they need to be armed to resist their own government is completely deluded.

 LoneLictor wrote:
The average gun-owner is a conservative. And clearly they are protecting freedom, because they've prevented all the things that they're against, such as....

1) A KENYEN BEING ELECTED USING WELFARE BRIBES
2) COMMIE SOCIALISTS CONQUERING HEALTHCARE
3) WOMIN GOING TO THE FRONTLINES IN THE ARMY
4) DEM GAYS BEIN ALLOWED IN THE ARMY
5) TAXES GOIN UP ON THE JOB CREATORS
6) THAT KENYEN BEING REELECTED

.

Here's exhibit A for why we can't have an open discussion...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaldor 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?

Of course they would. They'd use the armed populace to round up whatever group they've decided to demonise. And if they decided to demonise you, an armed resistance just gives the government justification (in the eyes of the international community) for escalating the use of force.

Tell me, do you think the military, acting on behalf of the government, would be happy to fire on their own civilians, their own people? Do you think having those people return fire would make any difference at all?

I think it would. I think it would harden their hearts to you, and make them more determined to destroy you. I think peaceful resistance is the only valid tool to resisting a tyrannical government, and anyone thinking they need to be armed to resist their own government is completely deluded.

Yeah... so?

The point being, not all of us "follow" our leaders religiously, but we all love our country. (Government != Country)

So, it's like that new 40k 6th ed Allied rule... "One Eye Open", which states:

At the start of each of your Movement phases... roll a d6 - on a roll of 1... they're too busy watching for betrayal.

I think that's an apt description for how many of us view our own government!

 Kaldor wrote:
Tell me, do you think the military, acting on behalf of the government, would be happy to fire on their own civilians, their own people? Do you think having those people return fire would make any difference at all?

To be fair, it's not like it has happened before in recent history... The fact that those guys were national guard weekend warriors perhaps makes it even more disturbing.