Is the USA at risk of tyranny?

[RenaissanceBiker]

We seem to spiralling around each others posts.

Originally Posted by Nessie

So if someone says they will shoot rather than hand over their guns or face other restrictions, they will be arrested?

If someone threatens to shoot a particular person they can be arrested. If you go running to the police because you heard someone say, "If the government tries to take my guns they will be in for a fight." they will probably do nothing. Your scenario lacks enough specificity to make an accurate prediction.

Originally Posted by Nessie

No. I think the only realistic action is to concentrate on getting guns off criminals. Because of the opposition of gun owners there is no point trying to reduce the overall numbers of guns.

I think we agree on this point.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

So you just want to take guns away from those particular gun owners and leave the rest of us alone?

See post #79 for what I think is the only worthwhile and actionable plan to reduce gun violence in the USA.

I don't think it would be possible to take guns off the owners who say their gun is for protection against tyranny. That would likely cause numerous shoot outs.

This thread about showing up the argument guns are needed to protect against tyranny as false.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Nessie

So if someone says they will shoot rather than hand over their guns or face other restrictions, they will be arrested?




No. I think the only realistic action is to concentrate on getting guns off criminals. Because of the opposition of gun owners there is no point trying to reduce the overall numbers of guns.

And the best way to do that is to reduce the number of criminals in the first place. It's also something that will require hard work, and politicians tend to really hate doing that.

[Nessie]

This is the outdated drivel I am talking about

http://socal-militia.com/

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson."

There is liberty when there is democracy and a rule of law and no one fears anyone else. Whatever some Americans may think, they have a democracy and rule of law with no sign of tyranny. America is so secure it is amazing that anyone fears invasion or tyranny.

In any case, they say they will defend their rights with arms. What about if they get plain out voted, what then?

[RenaissanceBiker]

Originally Posted by Nessie

In any case, they say they will defend their rights with arms. What about if they get plain out voted, what then?

You seem to be very frightened. Maybe you should get a gun to feel safer.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

You seem to be very frightened. Maybe you should get a gun to feel safer.

Not at all. I just think this kind of stuff is absolute rubbish

http://freepeopleontheland.wordpress...ional-militia/

"I understand the local militia is our greatest Constitutional deterrence against a tyrannical government and I will no longer hold them in disdain, but will serve in any capacity even if I don’t have a gun."

I think that is a joke and disrespectful of the USA's democracy, government, military, police and rule of law.

Any tyranny needs to deal with the government, military, police rule of law long before it needs to worry about the armed citizens who may oppose it.

[fitzgibbon]

Originally Posted by Twiggett

In my opinion, the chance of the US falling under tyrannical rule is as close to zero as is possible in any system run by humans at our current state of social evolution.

Yet interestingly enough, the States' media (and by extension, the consumers of such media) like nothing better than a 'Perils of Pauline'-like story (ie the laughable "Red Dawn" [either version] or "Falling Sky") which has a threatened-but-armed US populace striking back and prevailing against an almost-but-not-quite-overwhelming enemy.

It's kind of like a harlot fantasizing her virtue in Caligulan Rome.

Fitz

[Nessie]

I enjoy "Falling Sky" and "The Walking Dead" and films like "I am Legend" and "The Road". I think they should maybe not shown in America as too many people take them seriously, like the radio "War of The Worlds"

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by fitzgibbon

Yet interestingly enough, the States' media (and by extension, the consumers of such media) like nothing better than a 'Perils of Pauline'-like story (ie the laughable "Red Dawn" [either version] or "Falling Sky") which has a threatened-but-armed US populace striking back and prevailing against an almost-but-not-quite-overwhelming enemy.

It's kind of like a harlot fantasizing her virtue in Caligulan Rome.

Fitz

WRT the original Red Dawn (haven't seen the Thor version)...

Damn near all of them got killed!

Also there needs to be a ruling on this. Do you still need spoiler tags if a movie would be old enough to have completed a tour of duty if it were a person?

[fitzgibbon]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I enjoy "Falling Sky" and "The Walking Dead" and films like "I am Legend" and "The Road". I think they should maybe not shown in America as too many people take them seriously, like the radio "War of The Worlds"

I gave "Falling Sky" a chance with about the first four episodes. But the underlying premise struck me as too absurd and obvious to get past. Obviously from its additional seasons, there're enough watching and enjoying to gainsay my opinion of it and I accept that. "Walking Dead" leaves me cold .

I'd second your distribution opinion.

Fitz

[fitzgibbon]

Originally Posted by Polaris

WRT the original Red Dawn (haven't seen the Thor version)...

Damn near all of them got killed!

Still doesn't make it any less ridiculous a premise any more than the recent retread (which I haven't seen either [nor would I waste the time/money]{even if the review hadn't been scathing}).

It's still represents an absurd posture to a reasonable person.

Fitz

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

I do not assume this.

No? In that case it is odd that you equate something that poses a danger to one thing with something that protects another things from danger.

[MaGZ]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Tyranny, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary

Definition of tyranny, noun (plural tyrannies)

- cruel and oppressive government or rule: refugees fleeing tyranny and oppression
- [count noun] a state under cruel and oppressive government.
- cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control: the tyranny of her stepmother figurative the tyranny of the nine-to-five day
- (especially in ancient Greece) rule by one who has absolute power without legal right.

Is there any risk whatsoever that the USA could be subjected to tyrannical rule? I do not think that there is. There is no need for the likes of the Oath Keepers, the Militias and individuals to keep guns to defend against tyrannical rule.

The USA has a fine tradition of democracy and fighting off tyranny elsewhere in the world. Its past, present and future politicians, military, police and criminal justice system alone would never all turn rogue and allow the citizens of the USA to be subjected to tyrannical rule. To suggest otherwise smacks of paranoia and is insulting to the institutions of America that have kept it free from tyranny and will continue to do so.

Well, we have a communist as president so that must tell you something.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by MaGZ

Well, we have a communist as president so that must tell you something.

It tells us you don't know what a 'communist' is

[MaGZ]

Originally Posted by IXP

So was the McCarthy era not tyranny, or was it armed miltias that stopped it?

IXP

No, the FDR era was tyranny. Same for Lincoln.

[MaGZ]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Indeed. I suspect a lot of these ,militias believe that they have the courage to stand their ground and not fire until they see the whites of the enemies' eyes. The catch is that death will not come from an infantryman walking down the center of Maple St. Death will come from over the horizon or come from 30,000 feet.

The most ironic part is [stepping away from reality for a moment] if the U.S. military did try to launch a coup and the fighting lasted for several weeks, U.N. forces might show up to help the civilians and the civilians would shoot the U.N. forces.

The Syrian regime has the technical warfare edge but the rebels are holding their own.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by MaGZ

The Syrian regime has the technical warfare edge but the rebels are holding their own.

The Syrian military has a much lower mil tech capacity vs what the west has and particularly the US. US precision system for one thing

[Hans]

Originally Posted by MaGZ

No, the FDR era was tyranny. Same for Lincoln.

So you've added 'tyranny' to words, you don't know.

To help here are some real tyrants: Hitler, Stalin, Nero, Gaddafi, Hussein, etc

[Nessie]

This story typifies the whole nonsense surrounding the idea of protection against tyranny.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/03...ent-revolution

A militia called the Hutaree come up with a plot to kill a police officer and then attack his funeral with the aim of starting revolution. So they are the ones who want to start a tyranny of white Christians in the USA.

But the judge disagreed there was any risk from this group at all "Judge Roberts said that the prosecution could not adequately determine the specifics of the group’s plans, and that it was never proven that the plot was real and not just idle talk. “The evidence of the necessary next step – a retreat to rally points from where the larger uprising would occur – is wholly lacking,” she wrote."

So the reality is, protection from tyranny is actually protection for these groups who claim to the ones guarding against tyranny and those groups are in a fantasy world where they are incapable of organising a piss up in a brewery, let alone taking on the government.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Nessie

This story typifies the whole nonsense surrounding the idea of protection against tyranny.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/03...ent-revolution

A militia called the Hutaree come up with a plot to kill a police officer and then attack his funeral with the aim of starting revolution. So they are the ones who want to start a tyranny of white Christians in the USA.

But the judge disagreed there was any risk from this group at all "Judge Roberts said that the prosecution could not adequately determine the specifics of the group’s plans, and that it was never proven that the plot was real and not just idle talk. “The evidence of the necessary next step – a retreat to rally points from where the larger uprising would occur – is wholly lacking,” she wrote."

So the reality is, protection from tyranny is actually protection for these groups who claim to the ones guarding against tyranny and those groups are in a fantasy world where they are incapable of organising a piss up in a brewery, let alone taking on the government.

Nice.

And this story seems to support the idea the framers of the Constitution had as expressed in the Preamble when they said the federal government we the people establish is meant to be the guarantor of liberties, not the usurper of them.

Even if the liberty we are protecting is the freedom to spew a bunch of anti-government nonsense.

As I like to point out, we define crimes against the government (incitement to commit crimes, treason, etc.) very narrowly in order to protect the freedom of speech. This is right and proper.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

So you just want to take guns away from those particular gun owners and leave the rest of us alone?

You are the only one talking about taking guns off people, the OP pointed out merely that there is no need to have a weapon to stop the Government become a Tyranny. That doesn't mean there aren't other valid reasons, nor does it mean that those with guns only for invalid ones should have them removed.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by zeggman

This is part of the problem. There will always be apologists for increased government control, who will say the victims should just be docile and accept their victimization. As someone else pointed out, there were British loyalists in 1776 who argued that the colonists should just bend over and take it rather than take up arms to oppose it.

I don't much care whether your choice of words is "tyranny" or something else. The second amendment exists to insure that people have a way to fight back if government becomes too abusive or coercive.

I also don't much care if you think such a scenario is far-fetched, or less far-fetched but "the people would quickly have their asses handed to them anyway" so might as well turn in your guns now. I'm opposed to registering guns to make it easier to round them up. I'm opposed to government confiscation of guns. I want to make sure that if it ever comes to pass that people are being asked once again to "be a good Jew and just get on the train" they'll at least have a way to make it painful for those who are doing the asking.

Paranoia is not good to live with.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by zeggman

You were docile enough to let them take your guns.

You seem to be stuck in this Us vs Them version of the world where the Government is some sort of enemy.

In most Western countries, those people in the Government are just ordinary folk like you and your neighbours, they are the Us. Our Governments generally do what is a reflection of what the people of the country want, and if they don't and stray too far from what the people want, we have this thing that happens where we kick them out of office and put in others who might actually listen.

Our Governments are not an enemy, but rather a group put in place to oversee and do our will as a society, so if society decides that guns are an issue, then we place the burden of the Government to see to it that our will on that is done.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by zeggman

I don't much care whether your choice of words is "tyranny" or something else. The second amendment exists to insure that people have a way to fight back if government becomes too abusive or coercive.

That argument died when the POTUS got the power to force a state's National Guard into service against the will of the Governor.

US citizens have the right to posses firearms, the bit about tyranny involved the State Militias which are now the National Guard and under total Federal authority.

The 'Militia' in the COTUS refers to state militia's authorized by the state and recognized by the state not the Indian Creek Defense of Irreligious Intolerance militia.

The only power to fight tyranny is to deny the call of the POTUS for the state militia to serve.

Now a moot point.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by MaGZ

No, the FDR era was tyranny. Same for Lincoln.

Priceless

[Cogitatio]

The answer to the question entitled by this thread is yes, the United States of America is at the risk of tyranny.

Hence if the premise to argue against private gun ownership is by disproving the risk of tyranny in the United States of America then this premise is false.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Cogitatio

The answer to the question entitled by this thread is yes, the United States of America is at the risk of tyranny.

Hence if the premise to argue against private gun ownership is by disproving the risk of tyranny in the United States of America then this premise is false.

Do you have a very literal definition of risk? One where even if the risk is infinitesimally small you need to take extreme action to defend yourself from it?

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by MaGZ

No, the FDR era was tyranny. Same for Lincoln.

Erm, if this were remotely true, would it not suggest that there is an incredibly poor record for firearms helping prevent tyranny? I mean Lincoln, and FDR were not prevented from becoming president by firearms...

[Cogitatio]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Do you have a very literal definition of risk? One where even if the risk is infinitesimally small you need to take extreme action to defend yourself from it?

Yes I do, Nessie. You can read my personal assessment made in my very first thread, entitled "Tyranny is the banal evil in everyone"

(Forum policy restricts my ability to post links until I have posted at least 15 times here).

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Cogitatio

Yes I do, Nessie. You can read my personal assessment made in my very first thread, entitled "Tyranny is the banal evil in everyone"

(Forum policy restricts my ability to post links until I have posted at least 15 times here).

What I noted from the two experiments you referenced is that when things started to get out of hand a third party stepped in and stopped proceedings. That stopped the tyranny dead in its tracks. The same system applies in the USA whereby the politicians, military, police, criminal justice system are independent and ready to step in if anyone shows signs of getting tyrannical.

Indeed the third party in the experiments equates to the government as it had the power to stop things. So it is the USA's government which stops various groups of people trying to start their own tyrannies, such as the militias. The militias meanwhile misrepresent their position alleging they are the protectors of the American way.

[Cogitatio]

Originally Posted by Nessie

What I noted from the two experiments you referenced is that when things started to get out of hand a third party stepped in and stopped proceedings. That stopped the tyranny dead in its tracks. The same system applies in the USA whereby the politicians, military, police, criminal justice system are independent and ready to step in if anyone shows signs of getting tyrannical.

Indeed the third party in the experiments equates to the government as it had the power to stop things. So it is the USA's government which stops various groups of people trying to start their own tyrannies, such as the militias. The militias meanwhile misrepresent their position alleging they are the protectors of the American way.

My point is, Nessie, tyranny is an all too human and surprisingly common behavior. It doesn't matter who is on what side of an issue or what group a person is with, everyone is capable of committing tyranny, especially by groups who are a minority having power and authority.

The police, the military and politicians are all minority groups, and in a democracy they are entrusted by the people to hold great power. But human behavior dictates the inevitability of tyranny especially by those who believe they are in power.

Furthermore, tyranny unchecked no matter how small or how noble of a cause it might present itself will grow.

And a people without the means to keep tyranny in check is a people who will inevitably be ruled by tyrants.

[Halfcentaur]

In this day and age, having a fire arm isn't going to be much of a threat to the government in case they decide to become tyrannical.

At the very least, if you think people should be armed in regard to that issue, people should be packing RPG and grenades as well as stocking roadside bombs and the sorts of things you could actually do some damage with to the US Military should a guerrilla war break out between it's citizens and it's soldiers, amirite?

Why draw the line at guns in a world with drones, jets, and nukes?

[Cogitatio]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

In this day and age, having a fire arm isn't going to be much of a threat to the government in case they decide to become tyrannical.

At the very least, if you think people should be armed in regard to that issue, people should be packing RPG and grenades as well as stocking roadside bombs and the sorts of things you could actually do some damage with to the US Military should a guerrilla war break out between it's citizens and it's soldiers, amirite?

Why draw the line at guns in a world with drones, jets, and nukes?

Oh but the owning of small firearms by a person or a people plays a major psychological affect against those who might think otherwise. For better or worse in large or small groups an armed person always changes the calculous of a tactical situation by the risk it presents to those that own guns as well as to those that seeks to remove them. It would be a callous thought by those in power to think dismissively and consider it trivial for the police or military to march in and take away a person's gun, even when the police are overly equipped with weapons and force.

I can assure you law enforcement personnel are gravely concerned whenever they are faced with a situation involving a single gun, and I can also assure you many police do not appreciate the politicians call to ban guns as it has spurred the record purchase of guns and accessories.

So it does not take anything more than small arms and a majority of people wanting them to dissuade the worse form of tyranny that might be possible.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Paranoia is not good to live with.

Better to be paranoid and live than to be trusting and board the train like a good little Jew.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Cogitatio

.......

Furthermore, tyranny unchecked no matter how small or how noble of a cause it might present itself will grow.

And a people without the means to keep tyranny in check is a people who will inevitably be ruled by tyrants.

What keeps tyranny in check in the USA? Civilian gun owners or the combination of a government with a history of fighting tyranny, a military with a history of fighting tyranny and a rule of law backed up by a non politicised police force and judicial system? I say the latter. The civilian gun owners are kidding themselves and playing at being defenders of the nation.

Originally Posted by Cogitatio

..........

So it does not take anything more than small arms and a majority of people wanting them to dissuade the worse form of tyranny that might be possible.

All you would get there is a civil war, not protection from tyranny.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by zeggman

Better to be paranoid and live than to be trusting and board the train like a good little Jew.

Beter to live with real freedom rather then being imprisioned by one's own paranoia.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Cogitatio

Oh but the owning of small firearms by a person or a people plays a major psychological affect against those who might think otherwise. For better or worse in large or small groups an armed person always changes the calculous of a tactical situation by the risk it presents to those that own guns as well as to those that seeks to remove them. It would be a callous thought by those in power to think dismissively and consider it trivial for the police or military to march in and take away a person's gun, even when the police are overly equipped with weapons and force.

I can assure you law enforcement personnel are gravely concerned whenever they are faced with a situation involving a single gun, and I can also assure you many police do not appreciate the politicians call to ban guns as it has spurred the record purchase of guns and accessories.

So it does not take anything more than small arms and a majority of people wanting them to dissuade the worse form of tyranny that might be possible.

Really? And what exactly are you going to do about it if the US Government become tyrannical?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by zeggman

Better to be paranoid and live than to be trusting and board the train like a good little Jew.

The reason why the Nazis was a tyranny was because the government, military, police and criminal justice system was primarily on the side of Hitler and there was no rule of law, just rule of force dressed up as a functioning society under Hitler.

There were Jews who fought back in Warsaw, who escaped from Denmark with help from the government there, who hid in Berlin for the whole war, who rebelled and escaped from the camps such as Treblinka I and who fought with the Nazis. Then the Jewish population of Europe were subjected to a unique deception which depended on the level of anti-Semitism and cooperation of the government with the Nazis in the place they lived. Hence the Hungarian Jews died at a far greater rate than the Romanian.

So move all of that to the USA under a tyranny you would find the reality is an uprising in Chicago, Mains population escaping to Canada over a couple of nights, people managing to hide in Washington DC and the population of Texas being protected by the state, whereas Utah cooperates fully with the tyranny.

So just because civilians have guns or not has no real bearing on tyranny. It is a fantasy to think it has, based on a lack of knowledge of history such as that of the Nazis and even the American Revolution.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Beter to live with real freedom rather then being imprisioned by one's own paranoia.

I am living with real freedom, including the freedom to own a firearm if I choose to. The state I live in says under certain conditions, I have the right to grow marijuana, though the country I live in still says I do not. Thus, while my freedom is still more limited than I would like (though I have no desire either to own a gun or to grow marijuana), I'd hardly characterize myself as "imprisoned". "Constrained", perhaps, though not as constrained as those who live in Australia or New Zealand or wherever that flag waves.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by zeggman

I am living with real freedom, including the freedom to own a firearm if I choose to. The state I live in says under certain conditions, I have the right to grow marijuana, though the country I live in still says I do not. Thus, while my freedom is still more limited than I would like (though I have no desire either to own a gun or to grow marijuana), I'd hardly characterize myself as "imprisoned". "Constrained", perhaps, though not as constrained as those who live in Australia or New Zealand or wherever that flag waves.

You might be very surprised. There is nothing stopping NZers owning a gun if they choose to do so, provided they meet certain basic requirements (a police check and pass a test on gun ownership and safety). The US has certain requirements for holding a gun as well.

You can grow marijuana here too, in fact a lot of people do despite the Government's desires on that.

Beyond that, we don't feel we need a gun to protect ourselves. Our censorship laws are way less strict than in the US, and prostitution is legal here, as are same sex civil unions, in fact I would put our freedom up against the US any day and think you'd be surprised who would have more.