7 ms·

The dream and goal of every tyrant and despot ever is to reduce the martial capacity of their "subjects".

injidup 6y ago
The dream of every gun nut is to imagine they live in a world where they gotta pack that go bag and ammo and head down to the Capitol to stop the steal.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  It's the second amendment for a reason. Modern America is a historical anomaly. And as inequality grows here in America and we slowly but surely descend back to what has been the default state of humanity for thousands of years...with a few rich and powerful with their neck on the rest of society who is poor...we'll be glad the average citizen has guns to fight back at some point. There's a saying: History repeats itself.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    Modern America is an anomaly in a different sense: AFAIK it's the only country with a constitution that guarantees the right to bear arms.
    - rancor 6y ago
      Per Wikipedia Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala also have constitutional protections of varying strength.
      - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
        They do, but in practice they don't. Many European countries which don't have a right to bear arms still manage to have better gun laws than those three Latin American countries (and I should add, a number of American states).
    - nickthemagicman 6y ago
      The other countries haven't become provinces of other less Democratic countries thanks to America's protection.
      - nicoburns 6y ago
        Other countries still have armies and soldiers without having armed civilian populations. And America could do this too if they wanted to.
        nickthemagicman 6y ago
        So you want one group of people to use guns to stop another group of people from having guns. Interesting.
        nicoburns 6y ago
        Actually, I live in the UK. Here the police are mostly not armed, and still manage to prevent other people from having guns. But yes, in principle I'm perfectly happy with the setup where one specialised group holds the power of military force
        nickthemagicman 6y ago
        The UK is a bigger surveillance state than China. They have one of the worst levels of inequality in the Western World. You have ASBO's which are basically just a blank slate for people to be punished for the vague idea of 'anti-social behavior.' Also, your violent crime rate is the 3rd worst in Europe. The U.K. has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100k while the U.S. is 5 per 100k. Meanwhile there are 400 MILLION guns in America. So your government is repressive and the citizens are violent. Few countries need guns more the U.K. I'm sorry your gov't has defanged it's citizens so much with minimal benefit and has citizens that actually fight against their best interest.
        nicoburns 6y ago
  - pwlb 6y ago
    Is there any country in history that prevented its downfall because its civilians are armed to the teeth?
    - nickthemagicman 6y ago
      Western democracy wouldn't exist without citizens who were armed to the teeth. Do you think the monarchys would have happily and peacefully turned over their power because of the power of love? Because someone said please sir?
      - yellowapple 6y ago
        And to expand on this, there's a reason why even Karl Marx understood the necessity of an armed working class: "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."
        nickthemagicman 6y ago
        That's awesome. Did not know that about Marx. Any educated person who looks at cumulative human history can see this. History as a rule is filled with subjugation by the powerful for thousands upon thousands of years. There's the argument that policy cant reduce inequality, only plague, revolution, war, and state collapse, have ever reduced this. What we have now in modern America is an anomoly... and if one looks carefully at the growing inequality...we're moving back towards equilibrium. Wish history was taught better in schools.
      - kbenson 6y ago
        In the UK the Monarchy was stripped of powers by other nobles, not regular citizens. I'm not sure about other places, but I wouldn't assume it was always a popular revolution of some sort. I would guess in many cases it was slowly ceded to other parts of the government.
        _-david-_ 6y ago
- black6 6y ago
  Her name was Ashli Babbitt, and she wasn't killed by a citizen with a gun, but rather a government employee with a gun.
  - smokelegend 6y ago
    She died because she broke a window to the US Senate chamber floor during a proclaimed riot on the US Capital. She was shot once, center mass by a trained US Secret Service officer. She died because of her belief that her white privilege would save her. She died because of her poor judgment of her own actions. Nobody told her she has a right to storm the US capital and attempt to break into the US Senate chamber. There are consequences for your actions. She died because of her actions, it's not the US Secret Service officers fault for doing what he was trained for, swore duty to and paid to do. Do not attempt to glorify stupidity.
    - MrZongle2 6y ago
      It was definitely stupid to storm the US Capitol Building. No argument there. But she was shot and killed for breaking a window. Thank God she was put down before more glass was harmed!
tshaddox 6y ago
Lots of tyrants have implemented strict rules against theft as well. It’s really not a great argument on its own.
- leesalminen 6y ago
  It's unclear to me how enforcing laws on theft pertains to a tyrant retaining power over their citizens.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    The argument was of the form "tyrants do this, therefore it's bad."
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      I read it as “Tyrants do this because it enables their tyranny.”
SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
It's true because invariably the more well-armed a country's civilians are, the more democratic it is! Oh wait, actually they're unrelated and you're being stupid.
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
A tyrant and despot doesn't have to decrease your "martial capacity" but simply make sure theirs is more than yours. If a tyrant/despot secures control of economic resources this isn't overly difficult. Furthermore: rising up against a tyrant/despot is only possible if the population is very united; but a tyrant/despot, with enough economic power (or oppression of others) can make sure a population is ideologically or otherwise fractured/disunited and cause infighting. This will actually make benefits of being well armed a liability as now you have a tyrant/despot and also can't walk safely in your neighboorhood.
- jaywalk 6y ago
  Yeah, because history isn't littered with instances of David beating Goliath...
- MangoCoffee 6y ago
  well..by your logics the US founding fathers should just gave up 'cause at that time, the British Empire is stronger than whatever two-bits army that the founding fathers can scrap together.
  - analog31 6y ago
    In my view, that's survivor bias. I think that an insurrection can render a country or region un-governable, even with a numerical disadvantage. But it can't necessarily establish a new government, either a good one or a bad one. The two-bits army was ideologically and organizationally aligned with an already functioning colonial government. But that's survivor bias too. I don't know if there are any reliable rules for the long term outcome of a successful insurrection. The British didn't need to be defeated, they only needed to realize that they could no longer govern the colonies.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > A tyrant and despot doesn't have to decrease your "martial capacity" but simply make sure theirs is more than yours. If a tyrant/despot secures control of economic resources this isn't overly difficult. And one major way of doing this is by reducing your combat power, and by securing control over the means of providing defense. > Furthermore: rising up against a tyrant/despot is only possible if the population is very united; Historical counterexamples proliferate. > This will actually make benefits of being well armed a liability as now you have a tyrant/despot and also can't walk safely in your neighboorhood. Fortunately possession and carriage of armaments mitigates both those ills.

The dream of every gun nut is to imagine they live in a world where they gotta pack that go bag and ammo and head down to the Capitol to stop the steal.

nickthemagicman 6y ago
It's the second amendment for a reason. Modern America is a historical anomaly. And as inequality grows here in America and we slowly but surely descend back to what has been the default state of humanity for thousands of years...with a few rich and powerful with their neck on the rest of society who is poor...we'll be glad the average citizen has guns to fight back at some point. There's a saying: History repeats itself.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  Modern America is an anomaly in a different sense: AFAIK it's the only country with a constitution that guarantees the right to bear arms.
  - rancor 6y ago
    Per Wikipedia Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala also have constitutional protections of varying strength.
    - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
      They do, but in practice they don't. Many European countries which don't have a right to bear arms still manage to have better gun laws than those three Latin American countries (and I should add, a number of American states).
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    The other countries haven't become provinces of other less Democratic countries thanks to America's protection.
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      Other countries still have armies and soldiers without having armed civilian populations. And America could do this too if they wanted to.
      - nickthemagicman 6y ago
        So you want one group of people to use guns to stop another group of people from having guns. Interesting.
        nicoburns 6y ago
        Actually, I live in the UK. Here the police are mostly not armed, and still manage to prevent other people from having guns. But yes, in principle I'm perfectly happy with the setup where one specialised group holds the power of military force
        nickthemagicman 6y ago
        The UK is a bigger surveillance state than China. They have one of the worst levels of inequality in the Western World. You have ASBO's which are basically just a blank slate for people to be punished for the vague idea of 'anti-social behavior.' Also, your violent crime rate is the 3rd worst in Europe. The U.K. has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100k while the U.S. is 5 per 100k. Meanwhile there are 400 MILLION guns in America. So your government is repressive and the citizens are violent. Few countries need guns more the U.K. I'm sorry your gov't has defanged it's citizens so much with minimal benefit and has citizens that actually fight against their best interest.
        nicoburns 6y ago
- pwlb 6y ago
  Is there any country in history that prevented its downfall because its civilians are armed to the teeth?
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Western democracy wouldn't exist without citizens who were armed to the teeth. Do you think the monarchys would have happily and peacefully turned over their power because of the power of love? Because someone said please sir?
    - yellowapple 6y ago
      And to expand on this, there's a reason why even Karl Marx understood the necessity of an armed working class: "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."
      - nickthemagicman 6y ago
        That's awesome. Did not know that about Marx. Any educated person who looks at cumulative human history can see this. History as a rule is filled with subjugation by the powerful for thousands upon thousands of years. There's the argument that policy cant reduce inequality, only plague, revolution, war, and state collapse, have ever reduced this. What we have now in modern America is an anomoly... and if one looks carefully at the growing inequality...we're moving back towards equilibrium. Wish history was taught better in schools.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      In the UK the Monarchy was stripped of powers by other nobles, not regular citizens. I'm not sure about other places, but I wouldn't assume it was always a popular revolution of some sort. I would guess in many cases it was slowly ceded to other parts of the government.
      - _-david-_ 6y ago
black6 6y ago
Her name was Ashli Babbitt, and she wasn't killed by a citizen with a gun, but rather a government employee with a gun.
- smokelegend 6y ago
  She died because she broke a window to the US Senate chamber floor during a proclaimed riot on the US Capital. She was shot once, center mass by a trained US Secret Service officer. She died because of her belief that her white privilege would save her. She died because of her poor judgment of her own actions. Nobody told her she has a right to storm the US capital and attempt to break into the US Senate chamber. There are consequences for your actions. She died because of her actions, it's not the US Secret Service officers fault for doing what he was trained for, swore duty to and paid to do. Do not attempt to glorify stupidity.
  - MrZongle2 6y ago
    It was definitely stupid to storm the US Capitol Building. No argument there. But she was shot and killed for breaking a window. Thank God she was put down before more glass was harmed!

tshaddox 6y ago

Lots of tyrants have implemented strict rules against theft as well. It’s really not a great argument on its own.

leesalminen 6y ago
It's unclear to me how enforcing laws on theft pertains to a tyrant retaining power over their citizens.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  The argument was of the form "tyrants do this, therefore it's bad."
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    I read it as “Tyrants do this because it enables their tyranny.”

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago

It's true because invariably the more well-armed a country's civilians are, the more democratic it is! Oh wait, actually they're unrelated and you're being stupid.

tenebrisalietum 6y ago

A tyrant and despot doesn't have to decrease your "martial capacity" but simply make sure theirs is more than yours. If a tyrant/despot secures control of economic resources this isn't overly difficult. Furthermore: rising up against a tyrant/despot is only possible if the population is very united; but a tyrant/despot, with enough economic power (or oppression of others) can make sure a population is ideologically or otherwise fractured/disunited and cause infighting. This will actually make benefits of being well armed a liability as now you have a tyrant/despot and also can't walk safely in your neighboorhood.

jaywalk 6y ago
Yeah, because history isn't littered with instances of David beating Goliath...
MangoCoffee 6y ago
well..by your logics the US founding fathers should just gave up 'cause at that time, the British Empire is stronger than whatever two-bits army that the founding fathers can scrap together.
- analog31 6y ago
  In my view, that's survivor bias. I think that an insurrection can render a country or region un-governable, even with a numerical disadvantage. But it can't necessarily establish a new government, either a good one or a bad one. The two-bits army was ideologically and organizationally aligned with an already functioning colonial government. But that's survivor bias too. I don't know if there are any reliable rules for the long term outcome of a successful insurrection. The British didn't need to be defeated, they only needed to realize that they could no longer govern the colonies.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> A tyrant and despot doesn't have to decrease your "martial capacity" but simply make sure theirs is more than yours. If a tyrant/despot secures control of economic resources this isn't overly difficult. And one major way of doing this is by reducing your combat power, and by securing control over the means of providing defense. > Furthermore: rising up against a tyrant/despot is only possible if the population is very united; Historical counterexamples proliferate. > This will actually make benefits of being well armed a liability as now you have a tyrant/despot and also can't walk safely in your neighboorhood. Fortunately possession and carriage of armaments mitigates both those ills.