# Does an armed citizenry really prevent government tyranny?



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

This came up in another thread so I wanted to address it. 

Do you think an armed citizenry is an effective check, or any check at all for that matter, against state oppression and tyranny?

I believe it is, and I believe that the governments do as well. I think that governments throughout history have confiscated weapons from the citizenry specifically because they believe they are a threat to their own existance.

In that other thread I posted -



Thesemindz said:


> Examples of this include Qin Shi Huangdi confiscating weapons to prevent uprisings when he became the first emperor of imperial China, and the Satsuma clan from Japan doing the same after invading Okinawa, or Hideyoshi's "Great Sword Hunt" designed to regulate "the possession of unnecessary implements [of war] which make difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tend to foment uprisings." The Nueva Planta decrees of 1710 imposed by Charles the Third even required that kitchen knives be strapped to tables. In 1911 Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed. In 1964 Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981 over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed, unable to defend themselves.


 
Now, I believe that all states are oppressive by nature and exist only through violence and theft. More than that though, I feel that history has proven that armed citizens are a threat to tyranny, and that tyrants know that and are interested in doing something about it.

What do you think?


-Rob


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 4, 2009)

It's an interesting point of discussion, good sir.  Sadly, I'm out of steam for the day, it being heading towards half-past-two in the morning for me .

Hopefully, I'll be able to sling a couple of pence into the ring on the morrow.


----------



## grydth (Feb 4, 2009)

It would appear that a number of history's worst dictators believed it would.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 4, 2009)

Every dictator and tyrant, every one, has banned weapons for any and all even suspected opposition. From Stalin to Hitler to Pol Pot to Idi Amin to oh, well way way back. I'm sure even today Castro doesn't allow them. Iran does not allow them. North Korea really does not allow pesants to own their own weapons.

Notice a rather large majority of nations greatly restrict arms. And many of them have had civil wars. Africa, with the excpetion of Isreal and now maybe Iraq, have draconion restrictions. Asia is the same way (in fact I don't know of any country in Asia that allows citizens to own weapons like the United States.) Europe? Very few now. And europe has had it's share of tyrants, that's for sure.

*Citizens owning their own arms is like a fleet-in-being*. That is the mear presence inhibits those who would force the populance to do anything. The only way to see if they prevent governments from becoming tyranical is not if they had civil wars or coups, but if they have lived in peace inside their boarders for many a year.

The U.S. has been here for well over 200 plus years. We had one civil war inside out boarders over a 150 years ago. We have lived in peace (well pretty much peace) since then. Canada, while more restrictive than the US in civilian ownership, still has widespread ownership of guns and they are at peace. Switzerland is another one. They have been at peace for something like 400 years!

So I feel there is proof it does help.

Deaf


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 4, 2009)

I think  it could be a deterrent to a government run amok only if the armed citizenry had access to the basic armaments of an Infantry squad.  That means m-16's, M249 SAWs, and appropriate body armor.  As it stands now, there are too few owning those implements to put up a resistance to tyranny.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 4, 2009)

SFC JeffJ said:


> As it stands now, there are too few owning those implements to put up a resistance to tyranny.


Ever read _Unintended Consequences_?  :ultracool


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> Ever read _Unintended Consequences_?  :ultracool


 
An excellent book, with just enough sex and violence to cover the fact that it is basically political essay.


-Rob


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 4, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> Ever read _Unintended Consequences_?  :ultracool


Barely.  Interesting book if you can get past the horrible foreshadowing.


----------



## searcher (Feb 4, 2009)

Jeff-the best chance we have, if/when it happens, is that many in the military will stand by us and defect WITH their armament.    While we stand our ground with what we have.   I am just happy that I have enough training on guerilla tactics and CT to make a stand for 5 or 10 minutes.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 4, 2009)

Short answer--Yes.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 4, 2009)

searcher said:


> Jeff-the best chance we have, if/when it happens, is that many in the military will stand by us and defect WITH their armament.    While we stand our ground with what we have.   I am just happy that I have enough training on guerilla tactics and CT to make a stand for 5 or 10 minutes.


I wonder. About that... if our own military would in fact turn on their own when they are given orders to subdue even kill American citizens. It is hoped that National Guardsmen who are not full time military would retain as much of their citizen thinking to step back and say "hey, no, this is NOT right what we've been asked to do." Yet they are the ones called in to enforce Martial Law when it's been required... however temporary. They are the ones who are given the right to shoot looters (rightly so but still firing upon relatively unarmed Americans). 
Yet with gun laws becoming stricter by the month/year it seems this elimination of potential opposition of possible tyranny is being done in dribs and drabs rather than all at once like past dictatorships. 
It's been said that people should not fear their government but governments should fear it's people. 
Our founding fathers made it a point to ensure our right to bear arms because they've faced this situation before and were sure enough of history to know that it could happen again. 
Still, anti-gun folks are seemingly providing blind trust to our government(s) that it will not happen. Most pro-gun folks probably don't own guns in fear of the government, they own them in fear of their personal safety being violated. Yet, wouldn't that be the case should it be so ordered that all firearms be confiscated a few years from now?
How many will go into hiding and how foolish would that be given our present technology and ability to be so target specific that there is literally no place to hide? 
In 1945 it could be a sure bet that if the German citizenship were not deprived of their own personal firearms that the fall of Berlin would've taken a higher toll of the invading Russian army and over a longer period of time. Such would be the same to any invading military to the U.S. today because of our beloved 4th amendment. I'm not guessing victory or anything like that but a definite demoralization of any invading troops. 
I wonder how tempting of a target would the U.S. be should this wholesale confiscation of weaponry from the citizenship occur? 
Yet usually as history has shown, countries are destroyed first from within and then from without. When that does happen, IMO it's a good idea for the average citizen to be so armed.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 4, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> I wonder. About that... if our own military would in fact turn on their own when they are given orders to subdue even kill American citizens. It is hoped that National Guardsmen who are not full time military would retain as much of their citizen thinking to step back and say "hey, no, this is NOT right what we've been asked to do." Yet they are the ones called in to enforce Martial Law when it's been required... however temporary. They are the ones who are given the right to shoot looters (rightly so but still firing upon relatively unarmed Americans).
> Yet with gun laws becoming stricter by the month/year it seems this elimination of potential opposition of possible tyranny is being done in dribs and drabs rather than all at once like past dictatorships.
> It's been said that people should not fear their government but governments should fear it's people.
> Our founding fathers made it a point to ensure our right to bear arms because they've faced this situation before and were sure enough of history to know that it could happen again.
> ...


 


You can tell me not to pack/
But all I'm sayin' back/When ya tell me not to pack is NO! (NO!) nono-nono-noooooooo..................


----------



## Carol (Feb 4, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> You can tell me not to pack/
> But all I'm sayin' back/When ya tell me not to pack is NO! (NO!) nono-nono-noooooooo..................



:rofl:

So, if you ask me why I like the way I'm packin...
There's only one thing I can say to you....I WANNA PACK!!


----------



## chinto (Feb 4, 2009)

NO QUESTION THAT THE ANSWER IS YES!   study history, any culture you wish, and you will find that the first thing they do to take liberty from the people is disarm them. 

historical fact.  there is a reason why the founding fathers of the United States of America have inserted the 2nd amendment to the constitution! that is to make sure that the people would have the means to resist tyrants and the unlawful taking of their rights!


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 4, 2009)

chinto said:


> NO QUESTION THAT THE ANSWER IS YES!   study history, any culture you wish, and you will find that the first thing they do to take liberty from the people is disarm them.
> 
> historical fact.  there is a reason why the founding fathers of the United States of America have inserted the 2nd amendment to the constitution! that is to make sure that the people would have the means to resist tyrants and the unlawful taking of their rights!


Two things:
1. Chinto... (gently speaking) calm down ... this_ is_ a discussion and caps are tantamount to shouting which takes it out of the realm of civil discourse. Suggest using *bold* or _italics_ or even underlines to empathize a point. :asian: 
Admittedly however I've been known to use CAPS myself from time to time. 

2. I stand corrected that it's the _second _amendment not the fourth that we're talking here.  (too late to edit  )


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 5, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> I wonder. About that... if our own military would in fact turn on their own when they are given orders to subdue even kill American citizens. It is hoped that National Guardsmen who are not full time military would retain as much of their citizen thinking to step back and say "hey, no, this is NOT right what we've been asked to do." Yet they are the ones called in to enforce Martial Law when it's been required... however temporary.



I hope as well, But the Kent State Massacre still makes me doubt. Those were guardsmen as well.


Frankly, I think that an armed citizenry is an effective deterrent if and only if said citizenry is willing to protect their freedom at any cost. With the level of destructive power currently wielded, an actual revolution would be tough to pull off, if indeed it can be accomplisher. Put the purpose of an armed citizenry is about the policy of mutually assured destruction. 

If the people are willing to fight back, the government will have to fight harder or give in. If the government fights harder, and the people do not give in, the the government must fight harder still. You can see how this goes. At some point, the government (itself being made of people) won't be able to continue morally, or will keep fighting and wipe out the populace, effectively wiping out the government for lack of funds, resources, and manpower.

One thing I'd like to point out is that this _can_ be accomplished without guns. Ghandi proved it. But it requires an incredible amount of unity to the point where people are willing to die in droves for the cause. Then it becomes a war of attrition. It _can_be done without guns, but it is incredibly inefficient.

Any revolution is going to involve bloodshed. An armed society that is unified not only willing to die but _fight_ as well will achieve the same results with a lower body count. There are only so many members of government. Every member of government could be worth 100, 1000, or even 10,000 members of the general people. Let's say I had a population of 100,000,000 people. And futher, we'll say the government, from leader to lowly clerk was 1,000,000 people. For every 100 people the government killed, the people would need to kill 1 person to stay even, proportionally. Let's say this government, in order to scare  the people, dropped a bomb on a town of 10,000 people, the people could revolt and kill 101 key members of government and gain a proportional advantage (not to mention, depending on the chosen key members, this could wipe out the government's leadership and cripple it). The revolution could end with a very low body count. 

Frankly, the government has the least hassle if a) the people can't fight back, or b) the people don't feel a need to. With an armed citizenry, it now is in the governments best interest to avoid tyranny.


Because of Mutually Assured Destruction, I absolutely believe an armed citizenry really does prevent governmental tyranny, provided that the citizenry is willing to both fight and die for their cause.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 5, 2009)

Josh Oakley said:


> ... provided that the citizenry is willing to both fight and die for their cause.


 
that's the kicker..._most_ people don't care about anything as long as they're eating good and the football game starts on time (bread and circuses?...).  They're certainly not going to fight or die for anything as "abstract" as liberty.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 5, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> that's the kicker..._most_ people don't care about anything as long as they're eating good and the football game starts on time (bread and circuses?...).  They're certainly not going to fight or die for anything as "abstract" as liberty.



This is all hypothetical. In reality, it really doesn't take that much to start a riot


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 5, 2009)

Josh Oakley said:


> If the people are willing to fight back, the government will have to fight harder or give in. If the government fights harder, and the people do not give in, the the government must fight harder still. You can see how this goes. At some point, the government (itself being made of people) won't be able to continue morally, or will keep fighting and wipe out the populace, effectively wiping out the government for lack of funds, resources, and manpower...
> 
> One thing I'd like to point out is that this _can_ be accomplished without guns. Ghandi proved it. But it requires an incredible amount of unity to the point where people are willing to die in droves for the cause. Then it becomes a war of attrition. It _can_be done without guns, but it is incredibly inefficient...
> 
> I absolutely believe an armed citizenry really does prevent governmental tyranny, provided that the citizenry is willing to both fight and die for their cause.


 
I've had this discussion with some friends of mine. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, which basically means I want a world of voluntary cooperation for mutual gain, free from state oppression. 

Ultimately, I believe society will evolve to that place. I think the advent of new technologies and increased access to knowledge and learning will eventually make systems of central authority untenable. I think this could involve a violent revolution, but doesn't necessarily need to.

Instead it could be a revolution of ideas. As the same piece of technology that accesses my television, and my movies, and my internet, and my email, and my phone service, and my video communications becomes smaller and more transportable individuals will have more and more access to the collected thoughts of people all over the world. 

At the same time, central governments will find it more and more difficult to identify and regulate commerce and confederacy. The free trade of ideas is just as important as the free trade of goods and services. Eventually, the inability of states to control thought, coupled with the increased ability of the people to expand their perspectives and economic opportunities may be enough to put an end to all nation states, without a single shot being fired.

It is my belief that eventually man will evolve beyond oppressive central authority. It is my hope that we can do that without violence. It is my dream to see it before I die.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 5, 2009)

Josh Oakley said:


> This is all hypothetical. In reality, it really doesn't take that much to start a riot


 
True. All it takes is one gnarly breast exposed during a half time show.


-Rob


----------



## Brian King (Feb 5, 2009)

> Do you think an armed citizenry is an effective check, or any check at all for that matter, against state oppression and tyranny?


 
Leaving aside for a moment the comparisons of weapons that civilians would have at their use verse the weapon systems that Governments would have ready for use, there is another factor involved that rarely makes it into these types of conversations. A population that is willing to be armed is willing to do more. When you hold the means to destroy a man in your hands it can bestow upon you terrible powers that most instinctively understand must be harnessed with responsibility. The weight of this obligation makes many that choose to be armed more serious in their outlooks and understandings. They are more willing to stand up and take responsibilities onto their own shoulders. Not just responsibility for their and their families self defense but often their neighbors as well. There is an awareness that must be developed when going about your day to day business armed. This awareness bleeds over unto all aspects of life including political and religious. A armed populace is not as beholding to governments for protection, an armed citizen in my opinion is more likely to hold their politicians accountable if they should they attempt to oppress, not by storming the gates but by paying attention and applying that responsibility to take the time to get involved with local politics and resist changes or to make the changes needed. The willingness to stand up to mob mentality and tell their neighbors and their government no is a strength often overlooked and underestimated. 

A population willing to stay unarmed and at the mercy of the powers that be will be of necessity ready to succumb to the justifications needed to convince themselves that there is no need to worry, or that they didnt have a chance to do different, or it is not them being oppressed but those others or the worst in my opinion is the justification that that part of society needed oppressing and brought it onto themselves. A feeling of helplessness produces a victim mentality that forces one to submit to others for protection and to rationalize the loss of freedom for supposed security or if the freedom has never yet been realized the victim mentality will often see those freedoms as too expensive and not worth the cost. 

A gun by itself will not necessarily combat fear but the willingness and ability to shoulder the weight of responsible gun ownership often does. This willingness translates to an armed populace that pays attention to what its government is doing and the confidence to say no if need be. 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## DavidCC (Feb 5, 2009)

chinto said:


> NO QUESTION THAT THE ANSWER IS YES! study history, any culture you wish, and you will find that the first thing they do to take liberty from the people is disarm them.
> 
> historical fact. there is a reason why the founding fathers of the United States of America have inserted the 2nd amendment to the constitution! that is to make sure that the people would have the means to resist tyrants and the unlawful taking of their rights!


 
I thoguht it was because they didn't have the funds to support a full-time standing army...


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2009)

What happens if the 'tyranny' starts off by espousing all the views you hold dear? If they seem to be the party that ticks all the boxes for you, has the same values etc then by stealth starts eroding away your freedoms in such a way that seem eminently reasonable and too late you realise the truth?

People assume the tyrants/dictators whatever will come from a view point opposite to theirs ie communists, fascists who have a clear agenda to socialise or otherwise take over the country. Many times though it's not, the government will have been voted in, applauded, feted even. They have your interests at heart, they are people like you but slowly they bring in laws that restrict freedoms but always for a good reason, one you can understand and even congratulate yourself on voting in and supporting such an astute Party. 

You may cotton on quickly that things aren't right but what happens then? Will your neighbours support you, will your friends and family understand or are you going to be a lone gunman? Remember how clever political propaganda and spin is, censorship done quietly, perhaps on the basis that 'we can't let the terrorists win so we have to restrict the info they can get from the media' if in fact many people notice.

People are fairly apathetic about taking public offices so the Party ( shades of Hitlers Germany) can get it's people in office easily especially if they say what the public want to hear. Very soon the takeover will be complete and the people enslaved....willingly and very very mistakenly.

The populace may be armed to the teeth but which way will they turn?


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> What happens if the 'tyranny' starts off by espousing all the views you hold dear? If they seem to be the party that ticks all the boxes for you, has the same values etc then by stealth starts eroding away your freedoms in such a way that seem eminently reasonable and too late you realise the truth?
> 
> People assume the tyrants/dictators whatever will come from a view point opposite to theirs ie communists, fascists who have a clear agenda to socialise or otherwise take over the country. Many times though it's not, the government will have been voted in, applauded, feted even. They have your interests at heart, they are people like you but slowly they bring in laws that restrict freedoms but always for a good reason, one you can understand and even congratulate yourself on voting in and supporting such an astute Party.
> 
> ...


 

This is an excellent point. In fact, this is exactly what happens. This is what _is_ happening_._

Each time we elect politicians into office we are giving them the power to use force to impose our beliefs on others. Under that system, especially in our country today, half the country has a gun pointed at the other half at any given time. It only takes a view votes either way for that gun to change hands. Yet even though they know that many of those votes are coming from ignorant, uneducated, frightened sheep, people still support that system in the hopes that in two years they'll get to hold the gun.

And each time, the politicians erode our rights as free people, while bemoaning what the other party did while they were holding the gun. Watch. One party criminalizes sex and drugs and rock and roll, while the other part criminalizes self defense and making a profit and speaking your mind, but neither party makes any significant effort to restore the rights you've already lost.

Imagine yourself standing in the middle of a bridge. Each party is slowly eating away at the edges without ever restoring the damage the other has done. And you're left standing alone on your ever narrowing freedoms.

They are not on your side. None of them. At best, they are a necessary evil which is drowning the people of this world. I don't even think they are that.

You're never going to fix this problem by voting in the "right" guys. You can only fix it by educating the people around you to be responsible for their own lives. It is a process of generations, and we have to get the ball rolling now, before it's too late.

The way our children are being educated in the government schools won't allow for freedom in the future. If kids aren't allowed to defend themselves in schools, they won't in real life. If kids believe that it is ok for a government official to search their belongings without cause, then they won't object to an illegal search in real life. If they are taught to appeal to the government with all their problems in school, then they will turn to the government for all their solutions in real life.

Future generations might not believe we should be armed. They might not even want to be armed. They might turn on those who do want to be armed. What will prevent tyranny then?


-Rob


----------



## Brian King (Feb 5, 2009)

*Tez3 wrote:*


> What happens if the 'tyranny' starts off by espousing all the views you hold dear? If they seem to be the party that ticks all the boxes for you, has the same values etc then by stealth starts eroding away your freedoms in such a way that seem eminently reasonable and too late you realise the truth?
> 
> People assume the tyrants/dictators whatever will come from a view point opposite to theirs ie communists, fascists who have a clear agenda to socialise or otherwise take over the country. Many times though it's not, the government will have been voted in, applauded, feted even. They have your interests at heart, they are people like you but slowly they bring in laws that restrict freedoms but always for a good reason, one you can understand and even congratulate yourself on voting in and supporting such an astute Party.
> 
> ...




Interesting questions Tez3




> You may cotton on quickly that things aren't right but what happens then? Will your neighbours support you, will your friends and family understand or are you going to be a lone gunman?


 
Thinking about them as someone who has been freely been willing to stand up and bleed for my own and others freedom first and as an American second my opinions will differ from many others I am sure. There are two God given needs seemingly competing in many of todays societies and with us as peoples. One is the perceived need for safety and care and the other is the desire for freedom. Freedom is not easily earned and as has been proven through the world it is very easily lost. I remember that lone man standing in the tanks path in China during their student rebellion and many other stories of a single person life being used to accomplish great deeds. A single voice strong and intelligent can sway the history of an entire nation or world. The term you used Tez3 lone gunman has negative connotations and loads the question unfairly but it is what it is and you are framing your thoughts from inside an apparatus that looks to provide safety and comfort while trying to maintain a balance of freedoms and restrictions. I am framing my thoughts from someone who has and does support the same type of apparatuses but does not want nor need the perceived safety and comfort that so many others desire and is loath to give up even the smallest amount freedom. While a lone gunman can change history (I am thinking of assassinations) those changes have never been positive. A lone voice has also changed history and many have made little difference in the big picture at the time of the voicing yet they have always had positive effects. 

Having a gun does not make a difference. The thoughts of what having that power available does. The accepting of the responsibility makes it more likely to speak out in my opinion and less likely to look to others to provide for your comfort and safety. The question becomes in my mind, do you do nothing? Do you point your finger at your neighbor and say it is his fault even while you remained silent or do you speak out and set the positive example? 




> The populace may be armed to the teeth but which way will they turn?


 
I would guess that it would depend. Are they a mob reacting out of fear or are they an army reacting out of righteousness. Many nations have fallen to tyranny exactly has you have written above Tez3 and many today live under tyranny voluntarily. I believe that it is mans destiny to be free, to create and to live by their gifts. History I am afraid is not on my side as mankind often seems to lean towards enslavement, both the willingness to enslave others and even more baffling to me the willingness to voluntarily become enslaved as they fear their neighbor rather than cherish them. 

Thanks for providing the thought provoking questions.
I am looking forward to reading your answers to your own questions Tez3

Regards
Brian King


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 5, 2009)

Josh Oakley said:


> I hope as well, But the Kent State Massacre still makes me doubt. Those were guardsmen as well.


 Good point and thus one of the causes of my concerned if the military will segregate themselves for the good of the people rather the government they serve. It is likely that there will be mutinies through out the armed services but probably not many.  




Josh Oakley said:


> Frankly, I think that an armed citizenry is an effective deterrent if and only if said citizenry is willing to protect their freedom at any cost. With the level of destructive power currently wielded, an actual revolution would be tough to pull off, if indeed it can be accomplish. Put the purpose of an armed citizenry is about the policy of mutually assured destruction.


 An armed citizen going up against the military would be the equivalent I think of a kid with an airsoft gun going up against a SWAT team member. The amount of firepower each would be capable of bringing to bear against the other is vastly disproportional. Anyone watching Future Weapons can get a glimpse of the inventory in the Government's military arsenal. What does the average citizen have in their arsenal by comparison? Any uprising would be put down rather quickly with minimal loss of life to the greater armed side. 

Now you might be thinking of the insurgents in Afghanistan fighting the powerful Soviet Union in their attempted invasion and having successfully driven the Soviets out. Well bully for them but compare them to the everyday average American citizen? Running daily in lemming like procession to their cubicals and sit at a desk for most of the day staring at a computer screen or working at factories, farms etc. etc. then lemming like back to their homes to eat, sleep and do it all over again for the next 4 days of the week? 



Josh Oakley said:


> If the people are willing to fight back, the government will have to fight harder or give in. If the government fights harder, and the people do not give in, the the government must fight harder still. You can see how this goes. At some point, the government (itself being made of people) won't be able to continue morally, or will keep fighting and wipe out the populace, effectively wiping out the government for lack of funds, resources, and manpower.


If the people are willing to fight back and die it might be at first. But sustained day to day combat conditions? I wonder. 


Josh Oakley said:


> One thing I'd like to point out is that this _can_ be accomplished without guns. Ghandi proved it. But it requires an incredible amount of unity to the point where people are willing to die in droves for the cause. Then it becomes a war of attrition. It _can_ be done without guns, but it is incredibly inefficient.
> Any revolution is going to involve bloodshed. An armed society that is unified not only willing to die but _fight_ as well will achieve the same results with a lower body count.


True, Martin Luther King also attempted a non-violent revolution of sorts. Got him killed and conspiracy theorists still feel the government was behind it but can't quite prove it. Ghandi also was assassinated but by a Hindu radical blaming him for making India weak. 
Two quotes by Ghandi relevant to this conversation:

> "When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall &#8212; think of it, always."




> "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"


What difference does it make indeed. 

Oh by the way... we're not talking about having a revolution now are we? :uhyeah: 



Josh Oakley said:


> Frankly, the government has the least hassle if a) the people can't fight back, or b) the people don't feel a need to. With an armed citizenry, it now is in the governments best interest to avoid tyranny.
> Because of Mutually Assured Destruction, I absolutely believe an armed citizenry really does prevent governmental tyranny, provided that the citizenry is willing to both fight and die for their cause.


I too beleive in the idea that an armed citizenry does prevent tyranny... but not for long. I also believe that the destruction won't be mutually assurred.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2009)

Brian, I will answer you as soon as I can but I'm off hotfoot down to the hospital where my friend had her baby just over an hour and half ago! Been sat here squirming with excitement waiting for news! A girl after 2 boys!! Yay!! and welcome to Ellie!
I'll be back lol!


----------



## Brian King (Feb 5, 2009)

*off topic*
Welcome Ellie !!!
It is a beautiful name and she has two older brothers for protectors and guides. What a great deal.
Take your time Tez3 celebrate the birth and safe delivery. 

Isnt it heartening to know that no matter how bad things can get, how important things seem, how the birth of a little one can put it all into perspective. 

Warmest wishes and prayers sent
Brian King


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 5, 2009)

I don't know if the founding fathers put in the 2nd Amendment actually believing in the "armed uprising of the oppressed population" or if they did it because they wanted the American citizen (and the government) to keep that thought and belief close to heart...lest we become subjects instead of armed citizens.


----------



## Guardian (Feb 5, 2009)

I like Andy will make mine short, yes I do and being retired military and having this type of discussion (same principles) not exact words, I can say for sure, not all the military would turn against the citizentry of this country.

As far as the question, yes, an armed populace is one to be feared by it's Government just as it should.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 6, 2009)

> Two things:
> 1. Chinto... (gently speaking) calm down


 
Hell no Chinto SPEAK LOUDER... this is going on today in the United States.. 
WE ALL NEED TO YELL THAT OUR RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 6, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Do you think an armed citizenry is an effective check, or any check at all for that matter, against state oppression and tyranny?


 
So, do we save the Second Amendment for a rainy day when a despot reigns? Or do we use the Second Amendment for the tiny tyrannies that claim so many lives? The tyranny of criminal attack. When you are alone. When the speaking out on social policies doesnt matter. When all the voting and all the praying dont matter, as you catch a glint of your reflection on the blade of a knife wielded by an attacker. At the scene of this crime, as with most others, there are no police present. Just the victim and the predator. Just you and your attacker.

Heres a tiny tyranny that befell a Virginia woman about sixteen years ago. At three a.m., Rayna Ross slept with her infant child in her garden apartment. It was fitful slumber. In the past several weeks, her former lover had attacked her, held her against her will and threatened her with a weapon. Authorities held him, but later released him/ He stalked her, and, as he did, he wrote to her. His letters grew increasingly dark, foreshadowing what experts would later call an inevitable murder-suicide.

The authorities issued a warrant for his arrest. They couldnt post officers, or follow her to and from work. They just issued a warrant.

Because Virginia employed an instantaneous background check for gun purchases, Rosss gun purchase was immediate.
Rosss purchase was not just immediate; it was fortunate, because her attacker burst through the apartments patio door and went after her with a huge knife at three in the morning-three days * after * she purchased her gun. Had she been forced to wait longer, she and her child would probably be dead now. Another tiny tyranny, but maybe not so tiny to the victim.

Phillip Russell Coleman worked past midnight in a Shreveport, Louisiana liquor store, and feared criminal attack. He purchased a gun und3r a five-day waiting period. Unlike Rayna Ross, Phillip Coleman will never speak out against the waiting period. His gun purchase was approved August 15, 1995-three days * after * he was shot and killed at the liquor store in the dead of night. Another tiny tyranny, but, maybe, not so tiny to the victim.

In Monroe, North Carolina, in 1957, the Monroe chapter of the NAACP was under constant threat and harassment by the Ku Klux Klan. They were trying to exercise their constitutional rights to speak out, to assemble, to vote, to associate with one another, and the Klan were armed, and using those arms to illegally intimidate them. The Klan had set about driving through black neighborhoods and firing guns at homes.

So the Monroe chapter of the NAACP decided to exercise another of their civil liberties-the right to keep and bear arms. They received firearms training, and when the Klan came around again, they ran right into the Second Amendment. The Klan fired, and that fire was returned in a fight they had no stomach for. The terrorists failed, because one right prevailed.

Second amendment opponents and apologists, and citizens of certain European countries, offer grim statistics, and lay them at the foot of the Second Amendment. I, too, can offer those same statistics as gruesome proof of the failure of reliance on laws that do nothing more than restrict the rights of law-abiding people, and do nothing to disarm criminals or thwart criminal attack.

The tragedy of crime is not only the greatest threat to our life and property; it is one of the greatest threats to our civil liberties. Restrictions against Second Amendment rights wont restore morality, and ineffective schemes will only serve to enhance hopelessness-as we are seeing in England.

If we respect the lessons taught by the tiny tyrannies of our country-and theyre not so tiny, are they?-we will find ourselves shoulder to shoulder with our Founding Fathers. In the Second Amendment they lit a fire of freedom, and we can read by the light of that fire two lessons our Founding Fathers intended-power does * not * belong exclusively in the hands of the state, and self defense is the _* primary *_ civil right.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 6, 2009)

BRAVO elder exelent post, may i post it in another forum.


----------



## sjansen (Feb 6, 2009)

In its decision, a panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals expressly held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess arms to defend against the "depredations of a tyrannical government."_Heller v. District of Columbia_ 

I think this holds the death nell for all the naysayers in people holding arms against a tyrannical government. The U.S. Appealate court upholds that right and this was not heard by the Supreme Court as they did not disagree with this verdict.


----------



## tellner (Feb 7, 2009)

Heller also said - typical *spit* Scalia fashion - that while the Little People had rights in theory they have none in practice. The decision clearly stated that any "reasonable" gun control was perfectly kosher. In other words, a sop to the proles so they'll be tearfully grateful and vote for the Party. But gods forbid they should have any rights that the Unitary Executive would have to respect.


----------



## thardey (Feb 9, 2009)

Ahh! I had this wonderfully inspired reply written, checked, and ready to send when my browser crapped out and erased it when I hit "Submit". I lost the whole thing.

Let me see if I can re-write this, but my heart isn't in it like the first time around.

Elder has a great point, and I think he is really getting to the root of the matter, with the idea of "tiny tyrannies."

At what point to tiny tyrannies lead to Big tyrannies?

When we refuse to take responsibility to protect ourselves from the tiny tyrannies, we are essentially handing our guns to the government and saying "please take these and use them to protect us." But it is impossible for the government to control all of the personal tyrannies, so it has to control them at large -- on a community level. In order to be effective at that (since the individual is no longer responsible), the government asks us to suspend some of our liberties, so that they can do what we asked them to do. This allows them to widen the net. True, some innocent people loose a lot, and a lot of innocent people loose a little, but the price of safety is worth it. As the people transfer more and more of their responsibility to the government, the government has to suspend more and more liberties to accomplish what the people are asking of them.

Eventually, a small group who have lost a lot, or are afraid of loosing a lot, begin to rebel against this idea of reliquishing their control to the government. They protest, insisting on their right to defend themselves, violently, if need be. Those who have abdicated all responsibility to the government for such things insist that the government protect them from these "radicals." In fact, they are willing to give up some more of their rights to the government, so they can protect them. Rights involving surveillance, phone-tapping, invasion-of-privacy and so forth.

In suspending more rights, the government begins to scare more people, but not enough to stop the trend. As the threat from these "radical extremist" groups grow, people turn yet more power over to the government, like search & seizeure. The government may even be asked to suspend the constitution, not for the general public, but for these select group of "terrorist" declaring them "non-citizens" or "enemy combatants." At this point, the government has the right to declare who belongs to this group, without legal recourse. Witch-hunts are encouraged for the "citizens" to report on the "non-citizens" to keep the country safe. As the "threat" from these non-conformists grows, the list of unarmed "citizens" grown smaller, and the government is called upon more than ever to protect them. Some groups of extremists may be rounded up and moved to relocation facilities, for the safety of the public. The constitution itelf is suspended for "non-citizens." The right of Habeas Corpus, the right to an attorney, their right to free speech is now designated as "hate speech," their rights to assemble peacefully are all gone, for the good of the community. None of it sponsored, or pushed by the government, but all of it in response to the wishes of the people.

At what point do tiny tyrannies become Big Tyrannies?

Some may read what I wrote and say I am being paranoid -- that I am making a slippery-slope argument for an emotional response. Others may read that and say that I am writing history. Where are we truly on this scenario?

Right now I am sitting about 3 miles from an old Japanese Internment camp. You can't tell me that it will never happen again. The only difference is the size of the "radical" group, and who is included.

In keeping our responsibilites, through the responsible use of guns, religion, free speech, and other rights, we stop ourselves from delegating those rights to the government, and keep ourselves from forming a tyrannical government. So yes, an armed citizenry does prevent government tyranny, if we realize it is our responibility, as well as our right.

What we have to be careful of, is when we give away our right to determine which rights we give away, and which ones we keep.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 9, 2009)

> What we have to be careful of, is when we give away our right to determine which rights we give away, and which ones we keep.


 
Simple NONE rights should not be taken or given away period.


----------

