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

In my opinion, the US has a democratic system in place that would not allow a 'true tyranny' to grow.
It's hard to imagine what people are talking about because no one is ever specific about how a Tyrant could dismantle these protections and create a framework where he/she/they seize power.

Also people can't agree, some people say they currently have a tyranny in the US. Others do not. I think people are mixing the term corrupt with tyrannical. There's a very good argument and evidence that suggests that the American Political System is corrupt. Yet it survives the corruption and lives on as a Democratic Republic.

If the voting system were to be suspended then that could start the spiral into tyranny. Failing that I don't think it can happen

The Soviet Union fell without armed revolt. As did most of their satellite states.

Bloodless revolutions and coups do occur. They are not the norm. But they do happen. And they may be the best solution in large countries with large populations.

That said, guerrilla warfare has also been very successful. It worked well against the British in the American Revolution. And against the U.S. in Vietnam. There are countless other examples.

Hopefully, one never gets in a situation that requires the exercise of either option.

Originally posted by Moresby
The Soviet Union fell without armed revolt. As did most of their satellite states.

Bloodless revolutions and coups do occur. They are not the norm. But they do happen. And they may be the best solution in large countries with large populations.

That said, guerrilla warfare has also been very successful. It worked well against the British in the American Revolution. And against the U.S. in Vietnam. There are countless other examples.

Hopefully, one never gets in a situation that requires the exercise of either option.

But notice that the Soviet Union - East Block countries fell after they had the tyranny, it did not prevent it. Guerilla warfare may work, but in case of it being the country itself, it would be a civil war.

That means, if tyranny arises, it may implode or be stopped by civil war. But we cannot prevent tyranny.

Originally posted by region331
In my opinion, the US has a democratic system in place that would not allow a 'true tyranny' to grow.
It's hard to imagine what people are talking about because no one is ever specific about how a Tyrant could dismantle these protections and create a framework where he/she/they seize power.

Also people can't agree, some people say they currently have a tyranny in the US. Others do not. I think people are mixing the term corrupt with tyrannical. There's a very good argument and evidence that suggests that the American Political System is corrupt. Yet it survives the corruption and lives on as a Democratic Republic.

If the voting system were to be suspended then that could start the spiral into tyranny. Failing that I don't think it can happen

North Koreans seem to love the leader of their "Democratic Republic". Germans loved Hitler. They get the votes in a democratic election, no doubt.

Obama is not yet at a point where Iwould describe it as a tyranny. But he has "consolidated" a loy powers and secured a lot of support. He should be expected to continue in that way. Tyranny may or may not happen during this presidency but if not then possibly the next one.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


Doesn't Obama have to become a Dictator before he can progress onto a Tyrannical Dictator?

Stop buying what they're selling. Stop earning more money than you need.

Not that I'll be doing any of that. I don't feel oppressed.

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

North Koreans seem to love the leader of their "Democratic Republic". Germans loved Hitler. They get the votes in a democratic election, no doubt.

Obama is not yet at a point where Iwould describe it as a tyranny. But he has "consolidated" a loy powers and secured a lot of support. He should be expected to continue in that way. Tyranny may or may not happen during this presidency but if not then possibly the next one.

I'm not an expert on the North Korean Government or the German Coalition but there was probably a great deal more movement in their system than in the current US system. I might be wrong though.

Of course not. I do not understand how people do not understand and grasp this concept. This is the whole point of the 2nd amendment. I keep reiterating this fact in every thread I see dealing with gun control, just hoping that I wake at least one person up. Anyone who thinks the government has their best interests in mind are sorely mistaken, and your rights are only as secure as you allow them to be, and giving up firearms, even "assault rifles," is enough to set a precedent that will ultimately defeat us, if it does not end our democracy outright. Follow this logic please:

Politicians are people who seek power over other people. This is not entirely normal, as wanting power over others shows an inherent character flaw, if not something worse. Therefore, if the situation presents itself for any politician, even the president, to strike at the heart of democracy and secure more power for themselves, someone will do it. One of the only reasons it has not been done already is because of the 2nd amendment. If that is gone, the military and police forces that stay loyal to the government, which labels everyone else as terrorists, are going to defeat those wishing to uphold democracy.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


1st, let me state that I am against any form of gun control, or any other infringement on our constitutional rights.

However, I don't believe that tyranny can be prevented just because citizens are well armed. Even if we could all agree and stand united, we would be mowed down in a flash. Especially, these days, with the advent of drones.

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.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


Do we see many Tyrants appearing nowadays?

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.

Drones can be hacked or shut down with electromagnetic pulses. Largely automated factories can be infected with viruses that produce critical errors in the designs of products used by the forces of tyranny. Salaries and bank accounts of police officers, TSA/DHS can all be reduced to zero, or even placed in the state of overdraft. It is especially easy to lock down bank accounts and other online accounts by attempting to access them repeatedly with the wrong pin numbers - you don't even need to know the correct information anymore, the paranoid infrastructure makes it so you merely need to try enough times for the computer systems to "lock out" all access for a limited number of hours, and then repeat the process after the lock down expires.

Farmers can poison the food supply of troops they do not agree with, and disagreeable anarchist relatives of the aristocracy, government officials, or nobility can commit acts of arson by burning down offices, burning important documents and files, and generally laying waste to any tangible copies of records used to control other human beings. Similar relatives of court house officials could create a similar effect.

The problem with seeking solutions to tyranny with a disarmed populous is your populous must still commit criminal acts to succeed. Some of these acts would be constituted as treasonous, even if the ruling party was already operating under the rubric of treason. If you are looking for non violent, legal solutions for a disarmed populous to overcome tyranny, there is no solution. When marriage and family values were more prized, the spouse and children and parents of the tyrants could attempt to calm or manipulate by love or lust the individuals away from Iron Fisted dictates, but the power of the nuclear and extended families are in recession, and that means legal solutions are non existent.

Just a side note, my friend from Reno NV. does gunfight shows, Wyat Earp kind of stuff with black powder and blanks. Pretty realistic entertainment at these events. He mails me every couple weeks and we stay in touch that way. He was saying in His last letter that ALL the Gun shops in the Reno area are nearly empty, and there are NO AR15's to be had at any price. I'm also hearing this same thing from other locale's.

They will never disarm America, it won't happen, there will be civil war before Americans relinquish their only protection to tyranny.

Does anybody trust the Government?

Originally posted by Plotus

They will never disarm America, it won't happen, there will be civil war before Americans relinquish their only protection to tyranny.

I don't see America being disarmed in the near future. It would probably be a career end for any politician who tried it. Gore, Tennessee etc.

Do you really think America would have a civil war over it though?

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by Moresby
The Soviet Union fell without armed revolt. As did most of their satellite states.

Bloodless revolutions and coups do occur. They are not the norm. But they do happen. And they may be the best solution in large countries with large populations.

That said, guerrilla warfare has also been very successful. It worked well against the British in the American Revolution. And against the U.S. in Vietnam. There are countless other examples.

Hopefully, one never gets in a situation that requires the exercise of either option.

But notice that the Soviet Union - East Block countries fell after they had the tyranny, it did not prevent it. Guerilla warfare may work, but in case of it being the country itself, it would be a civil war.

That means, if tyranny arises, it may implode or be stopped by civil war. But we cannot prevent tyranny.

the botttom line is one person's freedom fighter is what another would call a terrorist.
You want to fight tyranny, but how do you know you by doing this are not the tyrant ?

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. We get the governments we deserve to a certain degree. We the people allow them to be corrupt or dishonest or unjust,

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

However - a small group taking up arms will be seen as terrorists and insurgents and they will be put down.

reply to post by skynet2015


If you really want to be effective in getting rid of tyranny, without weapons - muster a military coup. That should do the trick.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

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

Did you read my whole post?

Where I clearly stated victory could not be expected.

John Lennon tried this in the 70s.. The CIA assassinated him because essentially he was right. The '___' and pot laden hippies knew that the drugs were opening their minds towards the class consciousness of the world, towards perhaps a literal conscious brain of the people of the world--TPTB have a monopoly on violence, but, if presented with the slaughter of mass innocents who revolted using non violence, revolted in a change of consciousness and social idealism, what could have been done? There are too many who could have organized under a cult figure like Lennon, and if the movement were sufficent enough, not only would the conspiracy have been exposed, but we may have had a violent insurrection because of it.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


Stop buying what they are selling and they will listen. This is the only way to take the power back.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

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

Easy. A rifle shot takes out an M1 Abrams tank's tyre

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


I think throughout history the norm would be receiving some sort of outside help...which is probably the number one reason against a one world government....you'd need aliens to come help! And in some cases the rebels won...but ya take away the weapons and people will have to have hidden resources...to rise back up...don't think its ever been done..i guess we could just all stop paying taxes and then everything would shut down anyway on its own.