posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:26 AM
My answers below.
1) How do we define a tyranny?
It's a broad term, certainly. Let's use the premise of your question, turn it around and assume that it's an undemocratic rule by one or a few that
eventually a large majority of the population would find undesirable and want to fight against - possibly using guns.
Does it have to start with something terrible like mass killings of people considered "undesirable"? Or could it start with something that gives
the impression of trying to act in the interest of the people?
I think it could easily do both! Most mass killings have been predicated exactly on the notion that they are in the interest of 'the people'. but
your question makes an interesting point - it's actually very hard to impose any form of government without the will of the people whether they are
armed or not. Most tyrannies begin with the absolute or at least tacit support of a majority.
Can PR be skilled enough to trick people into overlooking the signs of a beginning of a tyranny?
It has been in the past. Most tyrannies have occurred in situations of crisis when people can be swayed into thinking that autocratic power is
necessary or even desirable.
2) How do we know if we are moving towards a tyranny?
I think the basic signs are loss of freedom of the press, scapegoating of 'undesirables' and erosion of democratic checks and balances.
Do we need to be able to prevent a tyranny?
Yes. But small arms are unlikely to be a particularly effective method, in my opinion.
Is it possibly okay to have a tyranny - if the peron at the top is of good moral character?
Perhaps for a bit. But I doubt you could guarantee that state of affairs persisting. The wolves tend to thrive in those circumstances. And the steps
that always seem to be necessary to maintain the situation - getting rid of undesirables etc - tend to reward the amoral and bloodthirsty.
3) How can we prevent a malevolent tyranny if We The People have no arms/weapons?
By ensuring that the democratic process remains in place. In fact this is far more important. As I say, a tyranny is likely at first to have the
support of the majority. It won't suddenly be a police state with everyone herded into camps like an invasion. That is to say, it is unlikely to ever
look much like a civil war, I think.
Far more important to be vigilant and oppose curtailment to the freedom of discourse and democracy.
Will the Democratic Party (which widely supports gun control) never elect in its Primary a Presidential candidate who will later abuse his/her
power to become dictator or tyrannt?
I think this is unlikely. Certainly if one is weighing up the costs and benefits of wide gun ownership it wouldn't weigh very heavily for me in the
How can we look into the future to know this? Are democratic elections sufficient to prevent a tyranny? If somebody from another party gets
elected and becomes tyrannical, how will the Democratic Party restore a constitutional government?
It's a big if. The method whereby a tyranny came about would be unlikely to be prevented by an armed population. It's far more likely that
demagoguery would inflame the kind of people who tend to be right-leaning (it already has to a certain extent) and mobilise them into inadvertently
creating a tyranny. Look at the Patriot Act.
In summary I doubt that arms would be useful in preventing a despotic takeover. They might be of some utility to a resistance once the government
became tyrannical. And if there was a proper warlike takeover then they would be next to useless against, say, helicopter gunships and tanks.
Thanks for your post, I found it thought provoking.