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

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

 

1) Most tyrannies have occurred in situations of crisis when people can be swayed into thinking that autocratic power is necessary or even desirable.

Such as 9-11 or Katrina on a multi-state scale?

2) I think the basic signs are loss of freedom of the press, scapegoating of 'undesirables' and erosion of democratic checks and balances.

Whistleblowers prosecuted unjustly, Press, mainstream media, controlled by only 4 moguls (according to Dan Rather) who will lose their privileges if they criticize the government, democratic checks with George Soros owning the company that counts the votes.

(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.

So, the answer is No, it is not okay to ever have a tyranny - if we care for our kids.

3) 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.

Not necessarily. The public sentiment changed VERY quickly after 9-11. If a President wanted to become dictator would he have his Secret Service "burn Congress"? But even if it happened slowly would that make it better?

Far more important to be vigilant and oppose curtailment to the freedom of discourse and democracy.

But that is a question of perception, in a moment of high emotions. After 9-11 who was able to think clearly? Fear of "terrorism" is great enough to allow for the tools to let the government to restrict our travel. (Attorneys for whistleblowers are out on the No-Fly list).

(Will the Democratic Party 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.

John Kerry belongs to the same Secret Society as both Bushes, Skull and Bones. He does not disclose anything about it (as did Bush). How can you trust that he will not try to become dictator? IMO, nobody who is not a member of Skulls and Bones can be believed a word he says and should not have public office.

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.

You answers are very thoughful but I believe you are a victim of the two party dichotomy. Both parties are equally controlled by financial or other powers behind them. Why would both Kerry and Bush belong to the same Secret Society if not because they follow the same goal, only use different tactics. Good cop bad cop strategy, both have tactics that two parts of one strategy.

In summary I doubt that arms would be useful in preventing a despotic takeover.

Then what would? I agree but then propose something that would enable the people to prevent a despotic takeover. (sorry for the delayed response)

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

 

I can't see anything that Obama has done that is more pernicious than the Patriot Act. But admittedly I don't follow the US that closely.

I can.
www.youtube.com...

"develop a legal regime" (outside the courts) to make indefinite detention (without trial) legal (Prseident Obama)
"one of the most radical proposals for defying the Constitution that we have ever heard" (Rachel Maddows)

Originally posted by 00018GE
They did in India. (Gandhi)

They did what? How can it be done in the US?

Originally posted by unityemissions
Easy.

You quit paying taxes and fighting their wars.

... and go to jail.

Originally posted by HelenConway
You are asking the wrong question - it should be can an armed population take on the might of the US armed forces ? Do they want to ?
The answer is NO.

That is not helpful. You did not say what should do. Roll over and die is better?

So a workers revolt, strike, throw the wrench into the gears of the machine approach seems effective to anyone this day and age. A light weapons armed disorganized rebel force will somehow resist the combined UN, NATO, and Northcom troops and local forces and assets leveled against them? You going to vote them out? Can't sorry the system is rigged.

This trap was set before most of the readers of this forum were even born. This is the time when they close the gate to the pen that is the USA and open the gates of the slaughter house. Its all over but the crying in my opinion. Just one observers viewpoint but it sure seems that way to me.

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by unityemissions
Easy.

You quit paying taxes and fighting their wars.

... and go to jail.

I fail to see your point.

You scared of some civil disobedience?!

Originally posted by unityemissions
I fail to see your point.

You scared of some civil disobedience?!

You are welcome to destroy your livelihood without any impact other than people laughing at you.

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by unityemissions
I fail to see your point.

You scared of some civil disobedience?!

You are welcome to destroy your livelihood without any impact other than people laughing at you.

You really are a ... not so ThinkingHuman now, aren't you!!

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

I guess that guy destroyed his life without any impact other than those laughing at him, too... right??

Quite the non-thinker we have here!

Look, the question was how an unarmed population can resist tyranny. I gave you an adequate answer, and you choose to interpret in a way which was obviously not intended by me.

Either you lack the ability to comprehend what I'm talking about, else you're just trolling. Either way, not worth my time.

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by HelenConway
You are asking the wrong question - it should be can an armed population take on the might of the US armed forces ? Do they want to ?
The answer is NO.

That is not helpful. You did not say what should do. Roll over and die is better?

Ok this is the thing .. you want guns so that according to the second amendment, the populice can allegedly protect themselves from enemies foreign and domestic - is that right ?

The reality is, even if you wanted to wage a revolution against the US govt, their armed forces, of which the POTUS is supreme commander, would crush you like a bug.

So the revolution would be a quick and bloody battle and guess what the govt would win !!!

If you the revolutionaries put up to much of a fight for the US armed forces, which is highly doubtful then the US would call you civil insurgents and call on its European Allies, such as the UK, and then you 'd also have redcoats chasing your arse.

It is fantasy to believe that you can wage war on the US govt just because you dislike its policies.

You want to change things - then start a movement, lobby, lead people, inspire people, highlight injustice and as Ghandi said in a much over used phrase ' be the change you want to see'

If by some miracle you did get rid of the govt - what do you and your insurgents have to offer the people ? Chaos ? violence ? disorder ?

reply to post by HelenConway


Have you seen ' breaking bad ' ? it is amazing that once the goodies get rid of the baddies how often they turn into the very thing they despise. Have you read George Orwell's animal farm ?

''Remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades.''
Animal Farm
Major, Chapter 1.

''No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which...''
Animal Farm
Closing words.

I rest my case.

reply to post by HelenConway


You speak the truth, though I'm not sure you could elect people to change the system. There's too much greed out there to think it can be done, in my assessment.

Violence will certainly not help. Guns are not going to help in the least. They will give the moral authority for generals to command their men in uniform against their own brothers and sisters. The military won't have too many people firing on civilians who aren't violent. There will be much more veterans in uniform peacefully protesting.

The only way to get this done correctly is through non-violence, least we end up with an even more authoritarian government in place. If enough people disconnect from the tax base, the system implodes. You simply can't fine, jail, and get rid of all of us, or even a decent chunk. The jails are already filled to the brim.

Organized tax revolts are an out.

Put down your tools, dont work, dont pay your bills and you win.

The solution you are seeking comes from President JFK----- heres the gift.

One day of global fiscal amnesty, one day where all debts are erased forever globall and instantaneously.

This would break the monsters holding our planet hostage and controlling us like cattle, this is the only viable solution to the global control we are all under.

One day we all wake up out of debt and all the rich thieves wake up broke and equal to all of us. This is the only bloodless revolution possible and it is finite, it wipes out all enemys of the people overnight at once , it IS the final solution.

You or we all , need to use the Robin Hood Protocal to make this global humanitarian correction.

In honor of JFK lets call this day of global fiscal emancipation "the Big Event" and lets dedicate it to the freedom humanity deserves.

It is too easy to make a gun, we will never be without guns. There will always be ways to make a devise that will propel a projectile that will do harm. There will always be a source for weapons.
unless of course TPTB cut our hands off...

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by MrSpad
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.

Well, the US is the main party of the UN. How can they intervene in the event of a tyranny in the US? If they cannot do it in Syria...

You do not need the UN, you need outside powers, like Syria, like Libya and like the American Revolution of which we would have lost without French and Spanish help. So whatever fantasy tyranny that you come up with for the US it would have opposition that would suppy and train US rebels. All those guns we have would not be worth much against combat forces. Those guns would have to be replaced by a standard weapon for suppy reasons and augemented with training and heavy weapons from some other source.

reply to post by SpearMint

I don't think an armed one could either

Exactly. I was going to say that.

The most realistic defense would be hunting rifles and guerrilla tactics imo. Even then it would be more about drawing it out long enough they give up from exhaustion or something. There is just no way 'The People' could combat a force armed with tanks and Apache helicopters and expect a victory...

Actually I do think there is tyranny right now it's just a new flavour. Subtle and sophisticated. Manufacturing consent.

*Love Fest. Cool *

The amount of defeatist attitudes you people have makes me so physically sick...

You deserve it all! Honestly.

Originally posted by MrSpad

 

You do not need the UN, you need outside powers, like Syria, like Libya and like the American Revolution of which we would have lost without French and Spanish help. So whatever fantasy tyranny that you come up with for the US it would have opposition that would suppy and train US rebels. All those guns we have would not be worth much against combat forces. Those guns would have to be replaced by a standard weapon for suppy reasons and augemented with training and heavy weapons from some other source.

So tell me how we can prevent tyranny.

Originally posted by yourmaker
The amount of defeatist attitudes you people have makes me so physically sick...

You deserve it all! Honestly.

Do you include me in "you people"? If you are not defeatist, then you have the solution, right?

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

 

The most realistic defense would be hunting rifles and guerrilla tactics imo.

Are you talking about murder? You think that will stop tyranny?