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

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by lampsalot

Most people (~70%?) in America are not victims of tyranny, but benefactors of it.


Make that 99.9% and I'd agree with you.

Same in the UK and the rest of the western world.


Well, I said 70% when you consider 1 in 5 American children go hungry. There's a surprisingly large amount of poverty in this country. It might not seem like it when owning an iphone is cheaper than being able to feed your kids, but there is.




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


The most important defense against tyranny is free communication. No amount of firepower will prevent the government from taking this away. Conversely, without the ability to communicate, guns are ineffective against this particular threat.

Guns may be effective for home security if utilized correctly, but not as a counterbalance against government authorities.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by JDmOKI
 


Cut off the lifeblood of the profit machines ---human labor.

A general strike would bring the state to its knees. This is why communication is the most effective weapon against tyrany, not the firearm.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 

You are correct. But do we communicate freely? You and many young people now communicate in forums like this. This is democracy in action IMO. But the majority of people are still blinded by the "News" on TV. Even if they go online to check their facebook, that does not enable them to look beyond the indoctrination. Also, education is government sponsored. Textbooks deemphasize the negative aspects of the government (not just in the US either).

So we can communicate freely - our unfreely obtained opinions or views.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by lampsalot
 


Living in relative poverty does not equate to living under tyranny.

I don't even think that when America exercised aparteid that it was a tyrannical regieme. Though some may disagree.

However there are some (illegal) immigrants forced into slave labour (including sexual) by those who brought them into the country, whom I think can be said to be living under tyranny, even within an otherwise free country. Hence why I say 99.9% and not 100%

Sadly, it's the same in Britain.


Edit: if you can access the interent. If you can buy any newspaper you choose. If you can do for a walk at night, and look up at the stars, on your own..... Then you are not living in anything close to tyranny.
edit on 3-2-2013 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moresby

Well, preventing tyranny before it happens mostly occurs without violence. Usually just by voting in other people.

Like Hitler for example?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
 


Obviously Tiannamen Square did not really change anything. But that was China.

Imagine the same happening in New York or London or Paris. And the subsequent responses and consequences - financial, commercial and even military - as the footage is broadcast around the world.....

Yes, an unarmed population CAN prevent a tyranny. In the West.
You did not say how consequences would make it possible to prevent a tyranny. If people protest then what Obama (or Bush etc) would say okay, We will have a new election?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sajuek
 

Ghandi's peaceful revolution simply proves that not only is unarmed and peaceful protest possible,

Going the peaceful rout of non-compliance however. That would make a change.

Ghandi was great man and leader. But what he did worked in India, at that time, against a colonial power. What would be the events to happen for it to work in the US?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


Obama and Bush aren't tyrants!

The nearest any Americans have come to living under tyranny was during the aparteid years - which ended, as I recall, without a civil war?
Indeed, now you even have a 'black' president!!!!



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
The fact that you think an armed one can is utterly amusing. A tank and a drone and it's over.

Of course if, I dunno, you people stop thinking it's Left v. Right then tyranny dies. If you get rid of electronic voting machines. But your little pop guns??? Hysterical. 85% would run and the rest would be dead in 48 hours.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


I think my description is apt.

The notion that all behaviors and beliefs should be equally tolerated is most certainly a philosophical recipe for an anything goes society. The society we currently embrace today.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FeatherofMaat
The fact that you think an armed one can is utterly amusing. A tank and a drone and it's over.

Of course if, I dunno, you people stop thinking it's Left v. Right then tyranny dies. If you get rid of electronic voting machines. But your little pop guns??? Hysterical. 85% would run and the rest would be dead in 48 hours.

If you are talking to me, I do not own a gun. I believe they are dangerous to your family. When your nephew comes for a visit and plays with your son one may kill the other. But that is just my personal concern. I am not saying that other people should feel the same way.

Back on topic, how do "you" get rid of EVM? I cannot do it. Can you?

How do "you people" stop thinking left v. right? If you have read my posts, I stopped, and I guess you did. So what?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
 

Obama and Bush aren't tyrants!

The nearest any Americans have come to living under tyranny was during the aparteid years - which ended, as I recall, without a civil war?
Indeed, now you even have a 'black' president!!!!

So Bushg was not during what you call "Apartheid years"?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
 

if you can access the interent. If you can buy any newspaper you choose. If you can do for a walk at night, and look up at the stars, on your own..... Then you are not living in anything close to tyranny.

Sheep can look at the stars at night. I bet there are newspapers and internet access in Cuba, China and (before the fighting started) Syria.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by unityemissions
 


I think my description is apt.

The notion that all behaviors and beliefs should be equally tolerated is most certainly a philosophical recipe for an anything goes society. The society we currently embrace today.


That's not moral relativism. Just because you understand the genesis of a differing moral set, doesn't mean you should tolerate it unconditionally.

I consider myself a moral relativist, but definitely have lines which are drawn. It seems moral relativism may lead to a more nuanced perspective, and just attitude towards when dealing with complex situations.

I agree with you that most people don't seem to be taking this approach, and are simply denying a true moral structure period. I also agree with you that under moral relativism, in conjunction with poor thought, we are currently where we are, and it's a mess.
edit on 3-2-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
India kicked out the British with mass protests (didn't they?). So did Serbia and Romania. What about the Soviet Union and East Germany? Overthrown without a shot being fired.

Guns don't solve problems, brave (and moral) people do.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB328
India kicked out the British with mass protests (didn't they?). So did Serbia and Romania. What about the Soviet Union and East Germany? Overthrown without a shot being fired.

Guns don't solve problems, brave (and moral) people do.


Brave and moral people certainly can and do change things without firing a shot. I'd like to see moral and brave people change things peaceably as well, but it wouldn't hurt to have a few rifles in hand to make sure brave and moral people aren't killed because they tried to change things peaceably.
edit on 3-2-2013 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB328
 
India kicked out the British with mass protests (didn't they?). So did Serbia and Romania. What about the Soviet Union and East Germany? Overthrown without a shot being fired.

Guns don't solve problems, brave (and moral) people do.
What happened in East Germany, Romania and former Yugoslavia in 1989? Did the people suddenly become brave? Or was it not simply that they imploded because the money stopped coming from the Soviets?

India as I pointed out was run by a colonial power. Very easy to motivate people to stand up against.

Serbia and its neighbors did not have peaceful transitions. I remember a lot of people suffered ethnic violence and rapes. People probably would have loved to have a gun for their protection - mind you, from different ethnic group that they had lived with peacefully for decades.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


Well...That and there was plenty if violence in India.
We often only hear and see the deeds Ghandi was involved in.
We hardly ever hear of the outright violent rebellion that took place in other parts of the country.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by knowledgedesired
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.


You're taking yourself and the USA way too seriously, it's a 250 years old country in the middle of nations that are thousands of years old, the world has done wonders without its help and it will still be the case after, our planet is constantly changing, it doesn't means it goes to ashes every times the power shift hands.
Other countries have been the "cornerstone of the world" centuries before the USA, it's a game where the cards are shuffled every century or so, what you need to understand is that those matters are in your own hands and don't really matter to the rest of the world because it's not really a game changer to them.

About OP's question, during the French revolution most of the rifles came from military bases captured by common people armed with handmade weapons and tools, the soldiers were simply outnumbered and surprised.
You've got to realise that in this situation it's far from easy to shoot your own people, that soldiers tend to defect or refuse to obey orders and that you're basically fighting against the whole country, there's just no way for a government to fight back and win a revolution that is fully supported by the nation, weapons or not.

Why would you need to have weapons ?
It's not like it really helps you to defend yourself against an agressor who will always has the upper hand because of the element of surprise and ! find hard to believe that the government would need to engage in a full scale war against its own people, considering the fact that they already have a nice system set up where people work for them so they can earn more than a lifetime worth of money.
Why would they chance that ? What would they gain from it ? They already have all the power and wealth in the world.

And again, if the so called "surrending monkeys" managed to overthrow an oppressive and violent ruler with sticks and stones, why would the corner of the world need guns to pull it off ? One round of freedom fries, one bite of liberty sandwichs, a minute or so of Star Spangled Banner and you'll be on your way to take down those marxo-socialists in Washington.
edit on 3-2-2013 by BobbyTarass because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-2-2013 by BobbyTarass because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join