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

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I dont think an unarmed population can stop tyranny. But I do think an armed populace of 300 million all marching onto capitol hill or whereever they will hide is a force to reckon with. Not only that but other countries will see our plight, especially if many of us become martyrs to the cause. How many countries would see the govnt blast civilians with drone strikes or air strikes and sit idly by. They will support and train us, just like we do to other countries. Personally, I would flee this infested country if you do not choose to fight, violently or not. We must take our country back!




posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Treacherous and ultimately deceiving madmen of all: the government.
And I am its hopeless victim – doomed to see this enslavement to deception with open eyes but forced to live in its clutches.
Watching as men with no honor among them continue this false legal logistics merely for some false sense of honor to retain their societal and professional status.
Honor, that is, among thieves….......



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by region331
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 

Doesn't Obama have to become a Dictator before he can progress onto a Tyrannical Dictator?
I am not sure. Tyranny usually but not necessarily means arbitrary or cruel use of power. It only means absolute power. The same is true for a dictator. But Obama does not try to be the sole ruler. He tries to get the President and Congress to be the supreme rulers together.

Judges should not be in the way. States should have no signifcant powers.

Congress and the President will probably continue to be elected. But all of them are influenced by, and serve the interests of, powers behind them (Eisenhower called them the military-industrial complex, Kennedy talked about Secret Societies, Wilson see my signature).

Those powers are not elected. The United Nations are not popularly elected. European Union leaders are not popularly elected.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


Good thread. Short answer is chance of preventing a tyranny are between slim to none. I base this on looking at North Korea where the country has been enslaved in tryanny.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by skynet2015
 
An unarmed population can resist tyranny, however, the equipment is very expensive. Through a series of cyber attacks, hacks, and control over power grids, financial transactions, and shutdown of the arms factories and rerouting GPS signals, trade routes, and so forth, it is possible for a large organized civilian populous to resist tyranny through alternative means of resistance than physical violence.
The idea of a cyber-attack against the government to stop a tyranny is an interesting one.

The reason I don't believe it would work are two: 1) They are making laws to control the internet. Most of us are concerned about freedom of expression but the main goal for them may be to protect the government from attacks.

2) Such attacks could be launched for any reason at any point in time. The government has a real and proper need to protect itself. Any attempt to attack would only enhance the government's ability to protect itself. If one day the headline would be "US nuclear weapons controlled by unidentified cyber criminals" Congress would pass draconian laws with popular support.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by tamusan
 

I don't think citizens of the U.S. could ever stand united against the government anyway. We all seldom agree on any single thing. Even if we did manage to band together, what would happen afterwards? Those of us who do not subscribe to whatever popular ideology is pushed on us, would find themselves still living under tyranny.

Then, with or without weapons, we are doomed to become slaves to some tyranny. The gun will give us the choice to "live free, no I mean enslaved, or die".



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


I haven't read the replies - as I didn't want to complicate my thoughts on the matter before I replied myself. But I put another question to you.

Why has an armed population failed so miserably at preventing tyranny?

The truth of the matter is that the entire subject is much like the dead bolt on my front door. It makes me feel safe. It allows me to sleep at night with an illusion of security. But the reality is that a swift kick would bring the entire door in, probably splintered in half. Additionally the windows are naught but glass and can be broken by even a child with a rock.

The Second Amendment, for many years, has been much the same. I have a few guns and they make me feel safe - both from evil people and from tyranny. But the reality is that any group of people who wished to kill me, and possessed resolve would probably accomplish that end. My guns might only afford me a chance of temporarily staving off the inevitable or inflicting some loss upon those who seek to hurt me. Where government is concerned it's even more daunting. A cruise missile or drone would render my weapons absolutely irrelevant.

So what good do they really do?

In a worst case scenario our collective weapons would really only constitute a hassle to those in power, should they seek to flex their muscles in such a way as to draw universal public disdain. Even in that event, they'd do what it is that they'd do. They'd draft our own kids out from under us, indoctrinate, train, and arm them - then send our own children back at us with murder in their eyes and weapons that are superior to ours. It would result in a protracted and sporadic civil war, nothing like the first one our nation suffered. It would be more like Iraq or Afghanistan - with most people simply ducking and trying to live amid the flurries of gunfire that would erupt helter skelter and from time to time.

Then factor in the painful reality that tyranny has been accomplished through much more nefarious means anyway. Economics has been the true weapon of enslavement in modern society. We tend to stay so busy just trying to keep roofs over our heads, food in our fridges, and digital distractions activated that we don't have much time for anything else anyway.

The sad fact is that slaves work much better when they are unaware of their chains. Guns are obvious and we react to them viscerally. The economic chains are invisible and we all not only accept them, we eagerly participate.

~Heff



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
___________________

It would be impossible if you lived in one of the
P5 countries (permanent five) of the U.N. counsel
( China, France, Russia, U.S.,England)


Originally posted by Alfie1
What mandate has any armed mob got without consulting the electors ?

What did they do in South Africa to over throw the apartheid ?

____________________



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


It is tyranny when the administration and president ignore the constitution, bypass congress and do whatever they want.

That is the definition of tyranny by American standards.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



The sad fact is that slaves work much better when they are unaware of their chains.


I was insinuating earlier a tyrannical force was already on our doorstep. Although I targeted media control with mention of Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent... my overall drive was the idea tyranny has evolved parallel to the growing sophistication of well everything else. The People need not prepare for a violent militaristic force when the media, and economic stranglehold, is so successfully oppressive already.

I might potentially be more concerned if violent institutions were dropped because it would seem to attest to how confident they were in more subtle forms of control and persuasion.

Wow did I just omit religion from a post about oppression. That's a first for me



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway
 
The only way to fight tyranny is for each and every one of us to be as true and honest as we can be and actively demand this from our leaders.

Think about it 340 million people - maybe what 1000 in govt ? Do the maths, we can affect change if the people so wish it.

But the 1000 have the power to prevent us, the 340 million, from wishing for change (by keeping us in a state of fear) by manipulating us into believing falsehoods.

We cannot elect honest Presidents when both candidates belong to Secret Societies (the same one no less!).

We are he sheep, the 1000 are the shepards. They will be triggered to kill 90% of the earth population, if that is decided to be necessary.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
 

The sad fact is that slaves work much better when they are unaware of their chains. Guns are obvious and we react to them viscerally. The economic chains are invisible and we all not only accept them, we eagerly participate.

~Heff
What an insightful observation, that "slaves work much better when they are unaware of their chains". Then clearly it will be easy to enslaves the vast majority of Americans. However, a few of those who received the short end of the stick, may return to their former job with a gun and cause a big headline about his plight. Some may take them to a demonstration and shoot some police officers, or to commit suicide in a public square. As a result, the support for the government economic measures may dwindle, and with it its "chains".

In other words, a tyranny cannot be defeated with hand guns. But it can be defeated by the negative PR that results fom some, relatively few people using their hand guns in retaliation for the wrong they were made to suffer by government officials hiding behind unreasonable, unfair rules



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   
I have two comments, first is that the question in the OP is incorrect. It's not "Can an unarmed population prevent a tyranny?" rather it should be "Can an armed population prevent a tyranny?". And the answer to that is no. The reason has to do with both the quality and quantity of arms. If we keep handguns, rifles, and so on does it matter? There's fleets of fighter jets, stealth bombers, cruise missiles, and navies out there to defend the government. The only way a revolt can be successful is with the backing of the military. This has been true throughout history. It takes the direct or indirect aid of a state military to make a revolt successful. The US had it from France in our revolution, Cuba had it, and so on. The state of arms of the general populace makes no difference on the ability to revolt against the government, if they seriously want to put a stop to the revolt they have the means. That's not to say no resistance can be made, but the idea of open firefights quite simply is absurd.

The second comment is that you need to define tyrrany. If you use the definition the founders used, it's that the law isn't followed consistently between individuals but rather varies based on the whims of those in power. By that metric we aren't currently under a tyrrany.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   
In my opinion you and we here in the UK already live under a tyranical goverment. Both do exactly what they want with no care or thought to those beneath them.

In America and the UK millions marched to say no to war democracitaly speaking war should not have happened. Any protest that draws a significant number of people can be considered the will of the people as more people will agree with the protestors than the number that go.

What I believe we have here in the UK and in America is an elected dictatorship. You might get to put your mark on a voting slip but you will never have a say in any goverment policy unless you are saying exactly what the goverment wants.

At least in America the democracy at at state level seems to work better than the federal level which is something I would like to see here in the UK.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   

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

By being passive. If you're totally passive, then the FEMA will have nothing to hold against you.

They don't have rights if you don't give them rights.

Look at it from the other way: They still didn't invade our properties. That means, they can't. They need to show proof that this invasion is justified. So they push you into a revolution and make you appear violent. You must resist that push. The best resistance is one with no offences.
edit on 3-2-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TajRashae
I dont think an unarmed population can stop tyranny. But I do think an armed populace of 300 million all marching onto capitol hill or whereever they will hide is a force to reckon with. Not only that but other countries will see our plight, especially if many of us become martyrs to the cause. How many countries would see the govnt blast civilians with drone strikes or air strikes and sit idly by. They will support and train us, just like we do to other countries. Personally, I would flee this infested country if you do not choose to fight, violently or not. We must take our country back!

That is not the correct strategy. If you do that the FEMA will now have a reason to use its drones and man-less weapons. You will be neutralized without achieving anything, other that showing to the World that you're violent.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:00 AM
link   
It can be done, Gandhi/India did it to the british empire. But it needs and exceptional leader with a true non-violence policy.
In the light of true peace and love even the most evil man would see that what he is doing is wrong. Imagine a large square filled with people and a lone gun man (the last evil man in the world) in the middle. He starts shooting everyone but no matter how many dies no one confronts him they just stand there, eventually his ammunition is depleted so he resorts to a combat knife and starts hacking people down but they still don't resist. After a few kills he gets so tired and can't kill anymore and he doesn't understand why no one does anything, they don't play his game. Thats when I think he would see reason (the last and most evil man in the world).
It's a tremendous sacrifice but in light of the situation I think even he would have to give in to reason on what is right and wrong; don't hurt people and love all, the garden of eden, elysium, heaven on earth suddenly presents itself! *shocker*
Remember that I don't think this exact scenario will ever play out, it was only constructed to illustrate my point. Also something like this did happen in India during the British occupation, the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
edit on 3-2-2013 by Konoyaro because: Added some preachy stuff



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpmail
In my opinion you and we here in the UK already live under a tyranical goverment. Both do exactly what they want with no care or thought to those beneath them............
..............What I believe we have here in the UK and in America is an elected dictatorship. You might get to put your mark on a voting slip but you will never have a say in any goverment policy unless you are saying exactly what the goverment wants.

We probably do have an elected dictatorship but we don't think by any stretch of the imagination that we have a tyrannical government.



In America and the UK millions marched to say no to war democracitaly speaking war should not have happened. Any protest that draws a significant number of people can be considered the will of the people as more people will agree with the protestors than the number that go.

I agree with that and I think past evidence does agree with us, protesting can be successful. It has to be prolonged though.

At the end of the day, you have the opportunity to become an elected local official or a member of parliament.

If a society is what you want to participate in then there is no better alternative. We have to have a government. It is, after all, just a way to organise and managing a society. We're stuck with what we've got. Politicians are just managers, making unpopular decisions and making change and nobody likes change. Sometimes we're left out of the decisions. I heard that, if the population had been given the opportunity to vote on Black Civil Rites, black people would be still be sitting at the back of the bus in some States. There's an element of truth in it that statement.

I think once you start thinking of a society as 'them' and 'us', it's over. In 50 years time we'll all be dead and so will everyone in our current government. Will the government still behave the same? Probably. So how much are the individuals in a government to blame for the decisions that they have to make? Not a lot, they're inevitabley going to upset one group of people. Look at this forum, people can't agree on gun control.

The system always needs to evolve. The answer is to let it, that way you fix the problems. The alternatives are unthinkable.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Konoyaro
 


Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.



new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join