4 ms·

How do you propose the People should resist a despotic government. Supposing, as we must, the government literally becomes tyrannical, how do propose people res

How do you propose the People should resist a despotic government. Supposing, as we must, the government literally becomes tyrannical, how do propose people resist it at that point? That is the whole reason we have a 2nd Amendment. That's what it's about. We went in with everything to Iraq and Afghanistan and did we subdue them? No. Why not? Because they had guns, and with guns, they acquired further weaponery to fight us; No other reason. So you remove all the guns from "people who shouldn't have them" and how do you propose people should resist a tyrannical government? Serious question, I am not mocking you.

mrguyorama 7y ago
If the people were ever willing to use those guns to resist a despotic government, then why do we essentially have one now?
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  Because the easy way to rule over people is to convince them it's a good thing, not to force them. If you find enough people to agree with you and to vote, they will vote ever worse (the worst: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power)
  - david_w 7y ago
    Please, move to America... and bring all your friends.
- david_w 7y ago
  We have an over-reaching central government, but that is not a despotic tyrannical one. The closest thing to a despotic government is to be found in prototype form in the despot-petri dishes of universities with their "free speech zones" and their "hate speech laws" and their sexual harrasment star chamber courts and their chorus of "believe all women" (except Joe Biden's accuser). That's where the fascism is being auditioned and wants to break out of. Nothing radicalized more people than seeing these same professors surface during the Kavanaugh fiasco and hearing their own ideas come out of their own mouths in their own words. The left-wing echo chamber people have no idea the damage their pet obssessions and totalitarian visions are doing to their brand: literally, New York Times' Bari Weiss was on Joe Rogan and revealed she had no idea what the whole "wax my balls " controversy was about- she hadn't heard about it. That my friend is living in a bubble. OrangeManBad squeaked by in 2016. In 2020 it will be a landslide. That my friend is a consequence of living in a bubble.
KarlKemp 7y ago
The GDR was toppled without guns. The Maidan revolution didn’t have guns. None of the Arab spring revolutions involved violent overthrow using guns. Apartheid ended without guns. All of the color revolutions were nonviolent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution Meanwhile, armed revolutions: Syria, Venezuela Plus, you know, democracy: every election is a chance of nonviolent revolution. And democratic countries do tend to stay democratic, no weapons needed.
krapp 7y ago
>We went in with everything to Iraq and Afghanistan and did we subdue them? No. Why not? Because they had guns, and with guns, they acquired further weaponery to fight us; No other reason. But how were they able to have guns and resist the US if they didn't have a Second Amendment?
- david_w 7y ago
  Is anyone really asking me this? Do you know the history of Afghanistan? The recent history post 1978? Everyone had guns to answer your question directly. Are you suggesting we can all have as many AKs as we want forever in exchange for the 2nd Amendment? Because unless you are, you're either ignorant of things you choose to comment on, stupid or trolling me. I'll take all three for 500, Alex.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >Are you suggesting we can all have as many AKs as we want forever in exchange for the 2nd Amendment? Because unless you are, you're either ignorant of things you choose to comment on, stupid or trolling me. >I'll take all three for 500, Alex. Wow... you really get triggered if someone questions your cherished principles, don't you? I'm either ignorant, stupid or trolling? No, I'm just examining the assumptions behind your argument, something you seem either unwilling to do, or incapable of. Your thesis is that it's impossible for the American people to resist a despotic government without guns, and that it would be impossible to procure those guns without a Second Amendment. Yet, you've given at least one (of many) examples of a regime which has successfully led an armed revolution (against the US, no less) without having a Second Amendment. Now, the question of whether the Second Amendment is necessary to resist the American government has already been answered by you - it isn't, because it historically hasn't been. In fact, historically speaking, of all groups resistant to American tyranny the American people have proven the least effective of any. There's also a false equivalence in assuming that all American gun owners are members of a militia in readiness for action against tyranny. Most American gun owners are collectors, hunters, or merely concerned with protecting their family against intruders. That every American gun owner would be ready, willing and able to rise up against their government is a fantasy. Half would side with the tyrants, depending on the nature of the tyranny. Many wouldn't fight, most would probably just try to defend their homes. As for "suggesting we can all have as many AKs as we want forever in exchange for the 2nd Amendment?" that's absurd on its face given that we can't "all have as many AKs as we want forever" to begin with. The more reasonable form of your question would be "are you suggesting that it is possible to own guns without the Second Amendment?" And given that gun ownership exists in other countries, and that a black market for guns also exists in countries where it doesn't, the answer to this question is also, obviously, yes.

mrguyorama 7y ago

If the people were ever willing to use those guns to resist a despotic government, then why do we essentially have one now?

AdrianB1 7y ago
Because the easy way to rule over people is to convince them it's a good thing, not to force them. If you find enough people to agree with you and to vote, they will vote ever worse (the worst: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power)
- david_w 7y ago
  Please, move to America... and bring all your friends.
david_w 7y ago
We have an over-reaching central government, but that is not a despotic tyrannical one. The closest thing to a despotic government is to be found in prototype form in the despot-petri dishes of universities with their "free speech zones" and their "hate speech laws" and their sexual harrasment star chamber courts and their chorus of "believe all women" (except Joe Biden's accuser). That's where the fascism is being auditioned and wants to break out of. Nothing radicalized more people than seeing these same professors surface during the Kavanaugh fiasco and hearing their own ideas come out of their own mouths in their own words. The left-wing echo chamber people have no idea the damage their pet obssessions and totalitarian visions are doing to their brand: literally, New York Times' Bari Weiss was on Joe Rogan and revealed she had no idea what the whole "wax my balls " controversy was about- she hadn't heard about it. That my friend is living in a bubble. OrangeManBad squeaked by in 2016. In 2020 it will be a landslide. That my friend is a consequence of living in a bubble.

KarlKemp 7y ago

The GDR was toppled without guns. The Maidan revolution didn’t have guns. None of the Arab spring revolutions involved violent overthrow using guns. Apartheid ended without guns. All of the color revolutions were nonviolent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution Meanwhile, armed revolutions: Syria, Venezuela Plus, you know, democracy: every election is a chance of nonviolent revolution. And democratic countries do tend to stay democratic, no weapons needed.

krapp 7y ago

>We went in with everything to Iraq and Afghanistan and did we subdue them? No. Why not? Because they had guns, and with guns, they acquired further weaponery to fight us; No other reason. But how were they able to have guns and resist the US if they didn't have a Second Amendment?

david_w 7y ago
Is anyone really asking me this? Do you know the history of Afghanistan? The recent history post 1978? Everyone had guns to answer your question directly. Are you suggesting we can all have as many AKs as we want forever in exchange for the 2nd Amendment? Because unless you are, you're either ignorant of things you choose to comment on, stupid or trolling me. I'll take all three for 500, Alex.
- krapp 7y ago
  >Are you suggesting we can all have as many AKs as we want forever in exchange for the 2nd Amendment? Because unless you are, you're either ignorant of things you choose to comment on, stupid or trolling me. >I'll take all three for 500, Alex. Wow... you really get triggered if someone questions your cherished principles, don't you? I'm either ignorant, stupid or trolling? No, I'm just examining the assumptions behind your argument, something you seem either unwilling to do, or incapable of. Your thesis is that it's impossible for the American people to resist a despotic government without guns, and that it would be impossible to procure those guns without a Second Amendment. Yet, you've given at least one (of many) examples of a regime which has successfully led an armed revolution (against the US, no less) without having a Second Amendment. Now, the question of whether the Second Amendment is necessary to resist the American government has already been answered by you - it isn't, because it historically hasn't been. In fact, historically speaking, of all groups resistant to American tyranny the American people have proven the least effective of any. There's also a false equivalence in assuming that all American gun owners are members of a militia in readiness for action against tyranny. Most American gun owners are collectors, hunters, or merely concerned with protecting their family against intruders. That every American gun owner would be ready, willing and able to rise up against their government is a fantasy. Half would side with the tyrants, depending on the nature of the tyranny. Many wouldn't fight, most would probably just try to defend their homes. As for "suggesting we can all have as many AKs as we want forever in exchange for the 2nd Amendment?" that's absurd on its face given that we can't "all have as many AKs as we want forever" to begin with. The more reasonable form of your question would be "are you suggesting that it is possible to own guns without the Second Amendment?" And given that gun ownership exists in other countries, and that a black market for guns also exists in countries where it doesn't, the answer to this question is also, obviously, yes.