Can an unarmed population prevent a tyranny? If you think so, tell me how.

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
This thread is not intended to discuss neither gun control nor gun violence. There clearly is a problem with gun violence in the US. It seems unwise, however, to fix the problem of gun violence with something that may create an even greater problem, a future tyranny.

That is why I want to find out if an unarmed population can prevent a tyranny. The proponents of gun control I want to ask these 3 questions.

1) How do we define a tyranny? 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? Can PR be skilled enough to trick people into overlooking the signs of a beginning of a tyranny?

2) How do we know if we are moving towards a tyranny? Do we need to be able to prevent a tyranny? Is it possibly okay to have a tyranny - if the peron at the top is of good moral character?

3) How can we prevent a malevolent tyranny if We The People have no arms/weapons? 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? 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?




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Generally the put up enough of a stink that the government sends troops in then hope to grab some munitions from those troops.

Short answer, they sacrifice themselves until one can grab a gun from the government.

Or another group with guns comes in to help.
edit on 1-2-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Here is what I would ask, If you are willing to die for your beliefs could you also be willing to not kill?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   


1) How do we define a tyranny?

Tyranny is when Barack 'Hussein' Obama disarms the citizens and it is unable to protect itself from Islamic terrorist's like al-qaeda.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I don't think an armed one could either, I think that would only prolong it and result in more deaths. The question is: Is there a need to do so? I think not. In this day and age I just don't think such a thing would happen, there's a lot of unnecessary paranoia.

About defining tyranny, it would have to be something like mass murder or marshal law to warrant firearms.
edit on 1-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


The trouble, it seems to me, with any of this armed resistance to tyranny stuff is who decides what's tyranny and what isn't.

One man's tyranny could be another man's just right policy. What mandate has any armed mob got without consulting the electors ?

And what would follow in the improbale event of a successful revolt ? Utopia or some Mad Max wasteland ?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
This thread is not intended to discuss neither gun control nor gun violence. There clearly is a problem with gun violence in the US. It seems unwise, however, to fix the problem of gun violence with something that may create an even greater problem, a future tyranny.

That is why I want to find out if an unarmed population can prevent a tyranny. The proponents of gun control I want to ask these 3 questions.

1) How do we define a tyranny? 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? Can PR be skilled enough to trick people into overlooking the signs of a beginning of a tyranny?

2) How do we know if we are moving towards a tyranny? Do we need to be able to prevent a tyranny? Is it possibly okay to have a tyranny - if the peron at the top is of good moral character?

3) How can we prevent a malevolent tyranny if We The People have no arms/weapons? 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? 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?



You don't have to ask if the Dems would eventually elect someone who would impose tyrannical government...we already have him in the White House right now. This is an effort to take away guns so that he can further impose tyranny. Many of his executive orders would be found unconstitutional if they were challenged and taken to the Supreme Court. Obama is an anti-colonialist Kenyan who truly hates what America stands for...freedom and capitalism! If it were up to him, he wouldn't be going anywhere in 2016 and the first step to job security...disarm America so we have no fight in us! As the OP suggests, what would we use, knives and slingshots to stop the most powerful military in the world?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


Gorilla warfare. Hit and run tactics. Never get into a major battle. The best way to destroy the US government is to make it unprofitable.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
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 balance.

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.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
It has happened and it was successful. It started in a small town and spread like wildfire across America.

patriotpost.us...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Short answer NO.

Long answer: NO.

Although I think a non hostile approach would be the best it is the fact that Americans are armed which prevents the final over throw of the people.

WHAT THE REST OF THE WORLD NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND INCLUDING SOME AMREICANS IS THAT AMERICA IS THE CORNER STONE TO THE WORLD AND IF WE ARE DISARMED THE REST OF THE WORLD INCLUDING AMERICA WILL CRUMBLE TO THE CABAL.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
In answer to the question asked in the title alone, then all a population needs to do, is down tools and refuse to work. If enough people did that, the government would fall within days.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
You really can't, but thier is one way.

The total population could just stop. Demand thier rights and freedoms that are being taken away.

Stop paying taxes, stop voting, stop buying usless crap, stop working.....

Stop doing anything that benefits the gov't in any way shape or form.

Start making your own food, clothes and needs that you only need to live. Be independent of gov't and lose all dependencies.

No matter how you do it, its going to be a rough ride with or without arms.

This will never happen anyway because people are to lazy, ignorant, selfish, or scared its easier to hand over the guns and eat more cheeto's.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


I like your example - but point out that those folks weren't unarmed as postulated by the OP.
However, sufficient numbers might do the trick, or at least provide the impetus for even larger numbers to protest the slaughter (re: 1933 WWI vets demanding payments put down by US Army).

ganjoa



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Does the government listen to the people now? Does a vote matter in a left right only political system that either way you go the corporate wins? Me thinks the tyranny is here and not many see it. This brainwashed populace we live in is kind of scary in its short sightedness.

You cannot stop true tyranny except through force.

They are right now taking as much firepower away as they can because they fear the collapse of the dollar and losing the infrastructure due too the welfare people burning the cities because the welfare checks will stop. The American gun owner would just get in the way when martial law demands the eventual roll out of UN troops to protect the international corporations interests. Its all too obvious whats happening.


edit on 1-2-2013 by LoneGunMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ganjoa
 


They actually broke into the National guard armory and got weapons. Pretty easy to do. When i was 10 years old I rode my bike to a friends house. He lived next door to the National Guard Armory. He talked me into climbing over the fence. We were soon inside a tank. We found ammo box's and took them. If two 10 year old's can do it I am sure adults can. Some Constitution loving soldier has likely given a copy of the keys to somebody already anyway.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rezlooper

You don't have to ask if the Dems would eventually elect someone who would impose tyrannical government...we already have him in the White House right now. This is an effort to take away guns so that he can further impose tyranny. Many of his executive orders would be found unconstitutional if they were challenged and taken to the Supreme Court. Obama is an anti-colonialist Kenyan who truly hates what America stands for...freedom and capitalism! If it were up to him, he wouldn't be going anywhere in 2016 and the first step to job security...disarm America so we have no fight in us! As the OP suggests, what would we use, knives and slingshots to stop the most powerful military in the world?


This is what I don't understand about the state of American discourse. Do you genuinely think that Obama sits at the head of a tyrannical government? Compared to the genuine meaning of that word and the situations that have constituted tyrannies in the past? There is just no comparison.

Either you are completely misreading the situation or you are engaged in hyperbole for some reason. I can't work out which.
edit on 1-2-2013 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
If the tyranny is truly a tyranny with the backing of the military and unarmed population has no more or less chance than a armed population does. However on a global stage we have seen unarmed populations take down several dictator style governments as of late because those regimes were afraid of outside intervention. When in places like Libyia and Syria they did start shooting populartions who were not armed they saw both the rebellion of their militaries and also quick intervetion from outside parties who armed, trained and supported the one time unarmed population. In the case of an armed population so long as the popultion did not start the shooting then the same course as with and unarmed population can occure. Of course an armed population like the US would have to re-armed, trained and supported becuase of rabble of people with guns is not threat to any gov who has military backing.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
 

The trouble, it seems to me, with any of this armed resistance to tyranny stuff is who decides what's tyranny and what isn't.

One man's tyranny could be another man's just right policy. What mandate has any armed mob got without consulting the electors ?

Please go ahead and answer your own question, who decides what's tyranny? - And: Who should?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
I don't think an armed one could either, I think that would only prolong it and result in more deaths. The question is: Is there a need to do so? I think not. In this day and age I just don't think such a thing would happen, there's a lot of unnecessary paranoia.

About defining tyranny, it would have to be something like mass murder or marshal law to warrant firearms.

Without arguing with your first sentence, why not? In this day and age, information cannot be manipulated? Governments do not have secret services that commit "flase flag attacks"? Presidents (Bush), Senators, Cabinet members do not belong to "Secret Societies" such as "Skull and Bones"? People are not distracted by "News" about celebreties and sports?

Defining tyranny would not include whistleblowers being prosecuted unjustly? Removing people's choice of non-monopolised services? Unjustified military activities?

Why is there no need for it today?






top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join