Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
    Neat!

    Now, I can list numerous examples of civil liberties being infringed upon by the federal government over the last couple of decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations... all of which occurred while you clung confidently to your firearms, convinced they would save you from a tyrannical government. But so far, the hundreds of millions of guns in private haven't had the slightest effect in maintaining our civil liberties (except, perhaps, in allowing you to keep your firearms).

    Why not?
    Who knows, but I'm sure being completely unarmed will protect us WAY better than being armed. Much better chance of defending against a tyrannical government if you are unarmed, that's just a no brainer.

    ?


    • #47
      Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

      Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
      Those were some great examples of tyranny.

      But why stop there?

      Want to kill somebody? Can't do that.

      Want to rape somebody? Can't do that.

      Want to steal? Can't do that.

      Want to dispose of your used motor oil in a river? Can't do that.

      Want to sell crack? Can't do that.

      Want to drive drunk and impair your ability to drive and possibly kill other motorists? Can't do that.


      Man, this society is so oppressive.
      You are seriously comparing things that you do with your own body and property, that in no way infringes on the rights of others with things like murder and rape that very clearly do infringe on the rights of others? Damn.

      See this is why America is going down the fucking toilet. No one has the ability to think anymore. I swear having conversations on this forum is nothing but logical fallacy after ad hominem after logical fallacy.

      Can anyone on this board actually have an intelligent debate where logical fallacies and emotional arguments are kept to a minimum?

      How the hell does anyone get the notion that I'm saying murder and rape laws are oppressive? How the hell does that in anyway compare to things that harm no one else, yet you can't do them? How the hell does that have to do with the particularly Constitution-shredding legislation and executive orders we've had in recent years? That's what I'm talking about, not laws that protect the rights of others. And you know full damn well that's what I was talking about.

      ?


      • #48
        Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

        Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
        Yeah, but to cite issues that are petty and trivial as examples of the tyranny of the US govt is ridiculous.

        It is like what comedian Louis CK calls, "white people in America problems".
        That was a short list and I said that very clearly in my post. How's this for tyranny:

        A Drug War where no knock raids on people who don't even have drugs in their home, who get shot or killed by these no knock raids by Swat Teams, again with no warrants, no charges, no trial, all over a plant. A fucking plant. You have people having their property invaded and sometimes their dogs, their children, even themselves, being killed over a plant that harms no one. A natural plant. The Drug War also is 100% unconstitutional. Again, we are even talking about INNOCENT people with NO DRUGS in their homes, having home invasions, dogs killed, children hit with flash grenades (yes this happened earlier last year), and people even being killed when they defend their homes from what they think are criminals. And what punishment do the law enforces and government get for this? Oh nothing, they prosecute the defending INNOCENT home owner for simply defending his home from a no knock invasion (yes this has happened too). That's not tyrannical at all, nope.

        How about the Executive Branch, through executive orders being able to take over EVERY piece of property, every river, pond, stream, house, car, road, literally everything, in emergency or NON-EMERGENCY situations, by executive order only, no legislation, just the President - the President can literally take over anything and everything just by saying so, because of executive orders.

        What about being forced to buy health insurance or you pay a fee or face jail time?

        How about the fact that the government can spy on you without a warrant and without a reason, despite that being completely unconstitutional?

        How about the fact the US government, can, at any time, detain you indefinitely, without a warrant or a fair trial as very clearly specified in the Constitution?

        How about the fact that the US government can execute you, for ANY reason and the President, just as of the other day, can by law, keep it 100% secret and not release the information.

        How about the fact that now if you protest an elected official within a certain amount of feet, you can and will be taken to jail?

        Is none of this shit in the least bit tyrannical or am I the idiot because hey "it can't happen here, this is 'Merica"?
        Last edited by ericams2786; 01-04-2013, 05:59 PM.

        ?


        • #49
          Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

          Originally posted by soot View Post
          I've read all of your comments in this thread and I pretty much agree with everything you've been saying, so don't take this as an attack.

          But given everything that you've said, what makes you think that either an armed or unarmed citizenry has any chance at all?

          If we are currently an armed citizenry and our federal government is already tyrannical where is the logic that says an armed citizenry is a check against a government becoming tyrannical? Clearly, by logical necessity, an armed citizenry does not prevent tyranny.

          It seems to me that you're making the exact same mistake that the critics/opponents of gun ownership make and conflating the simple existence/availability of guns with some undesired/desired outcome.

          They say, "It's the guns causing all the violence. Take the guns and we'll be safe".

          We say, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people".

          You're saying, "It's the guns that prevent tyranny. Leave us our guns and we'll be free".

          Likewise, guns don't prevent tyranny. People prevent tyranny.

          We could have all the guns in the world and without people who have the will to risk everything in the use of those guns they're essentially little more than Constitutionally guaranteed paperweights.

          And quite clearly, especially in light of the developments of the last decade and a half, we as a people, though there is an outlying minority, have absolutely no will to hold the government to account as it grasps for more and more of our rights and liberties.

          I would argue that you, as a gun owner, are no more a threat to the federal government than you are to the elementary school down the road.

          You have a gun but you won't use it in the face of a government that snatches more and more liberty from the citizenry every day.

          So what use are you? What have you done to deserve the right to own that gun (understanding that while you may consider that right to be "natural" you actually only have it because it's been codified into our charter which can be amended if enough people feel that it isn't really a natural right at all)?

          If you won't use it for the reasons our founders guaranteed you ownership, but other folks are using theirs to kill kids, wouldn't we be safer, as a society, to strip all the guns from the citizenry?

          Our liberties aren't being defended by those who profess to own guns as a check against the erosion of our liberties.

          Our kids are being killed by those who own guns to hurt people.

          Seems like kind of a no brainer.
          I see what you are saying. The problem is you completely missed the point of my post. My original post only meant one thing: an armed populace would stand a BETTER chance of preventing a tyrannical government than an unarmed populace. I think that is rather obvious. I even said originally that I'm not saying either an armed or unarmed populace actually could stop tyranny, I was just making the rather obvious point that an armed one stands a better CHANCE of doing so, no matter how slim that chance might be. More to the point, a sovereign individual has the right to defend themselves from anyone; the only way to do that is to be armed, well at least against other armed individuals - and the government most definitely WILL be armed. The ONLY way to defend against that is well, to be armed. Doesn't mean that it will be successful, but that's not even the point. The point is, you have the right to defend you and yours; without arms, you can't do it.

          More to the point, people far more intelligent than me, the same folks who crafted our Constitution, spoke over and over again about the right to bear arms is the last defense against a tyrannical government. Almost every Founding Father spoke about the right to bear arms and the 2nd Amendment in that light - and really no other. That is why it was put there and that is how they defended it. Now, perhaps I'm an idiot, but Jefferson and Washington certainly were not - and they said clearly what the 2nd Amendment is for - even if it isn't necessarily successful in fulfilling that role.

          ?


          • #50
            Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

            Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
            Who knows, but I'm sure being completely unarmed will protect us WAY better than being armed. Much better chance of defending against a tyrannical government if you are unarmed, that's just a no brainer.
            Eh. Makes no difference, either way, except perhaps that some gun advocates have apparently lulled themselves into complacency by thinking that the mere fact that they own firearms means that they are actually protecting civil liberties (my discussion with CharlesD strikes me as an excellent example of this).

            Two things are very clear to me: One is that the government doesn't need to take our guns away to encroach on our civil liberties and the second is that gun owners have an extremely consistent record of being all talk/no action. Heck, when the government tried to disarm lawful gun owners during Katrina, you know what gun owners did? Handed over their guns... and then filed a lawsuit.

            ?


            • #51
              Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

              Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
              Eh. Makes no difference, either way, except perhaps that some gun advocates have apparently lulled themselves into complacency by thinking that the mere fact that they own firearms means that they are actually protecting civil liberties (my discussion with CharlesD strikes me as an excellent example of this).

              Two things are very clear to me: One is that the government doesn't need to take our guns away to encroach on our civil liberties and the second is that gun owners have an extremely consistent record of being all talk/no action. Heck, when the government tried to disarm lawful gun owners during Katrina, you know what gun owners did? Handed over their guns... and then filed a lawsuit.
              I think it does make a difference, and again that's not just my opinion. Jefferson, Henry, Washington, Madison, and many others felt the exact same way. They all said that the 2nd Amendment was the last defense against a tyrannical government. It DOES matter if you have a BETTER CHANCE of defending yourself than not. If someone breaks into your house, would you rather have a means to protect yourself or no means of protecting yourself? It's common sense: you'd want a CHANCE and way to defend yourself in that scenario. Versus the government, no you don't stand much of a chance - by yourself that is. Even a large group or a militia doesn't stand much of a chance - but they do stand a chance. If the slaves in the American South or the Jews of Nazi Germany had actually been well armed, would they have been able to resist a tyrannical government - well there's a good chance they wouldn't have been able to - they would have been outnumbered. BUT, they certainly would have had a chance to do so, even if it was slim. As history actually went - they had absolutely ZERO percent chance. It certainly was not a coincidence that the Nazis got laws passed that specifically barred Jews from owning firearms - and why slaves in America were barred from owning firearms. If those firearms could have caused no harm, why were they not allowed to own them? The answer is self-evident.

              Arms to not prevent tyranny per se, that is up to the citizenry. But without arms, the citizenry is just screwed, plain and simple. Maybe they are screwed WITH arms, I don't know. But I know one thing for damn sure: The Founders put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution for a reason (and they told us what reason), you have the right to defend yourself, you have a better chance of defending yourself with an actual means to do so, and I can guarantee you that had Americans not been armed during the Revolution (for instance), there would be no United States. Sort of hard to fight a war against a tyrannical British King when you have no arms. And guess what...just so happens it worked. Were the arms the only reason - well of course not. But it was a big factor, at least in allowing the colonists to revolt in the first place. Actual victory had many factors - but the beginning of the revolt would have been impossible with an unarmed populace, plain and simple.

              ?


              • #52
                Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                Who knows, but I'm sure being completely unarmed will protect us WAY better than being armed. Much better chance of defending against a tyrannical government if you are unarmed, that's just a no brainer.
                You forgot to end with.

                [/sarcasm]

                ?


                • #53
                  Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                  Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                  What about being forced to buy health insurance or you pay a fee or face jail time?
                  Ok...but there's people who don't have health insurance but need emergency medical care.

                  And the hospitals have to provide them service anyways and guess who foots the bill? It gets passed down to the rest of us.

                  So how are those people who are negligently not insuring themselves but using hospital services not infringing upon the rest of us who do pay insurance and taxes?


                  It's like the mandatory seat belt or helmet laws. The state doesn't actually give a shit if some idiot becomes a vegetable in a wreck because they're too stubborn to do something smart like wear a seat belt or a helmet. The state doesn't want to foot the bill for serious trauma and long term care when it could have been avoided.

                  ?


                  • #54
                    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                    Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                    Ok...but there's people who don't have health insurance but need emergency medical care.

                    And the hospitals have to provide them service anyways and guess who foots the bill? It gets passed down to the rest of us.

                    So how are those people who are negligently not insuring themselves but using hospital services not infringing upon the rest of us who do pay insurance and taxes?


                    It's like the mandatory seat belt or helmet laws. The state doesn't actually give a shit if some idiot becomes a vegetable in a wreck because they're too stubborn to do something smart like wear a seat belt or a helmet. The state doesn't want to foot the bill for serious trauma and long term care when it could have been avoided.
                    The thing about Obamacare is that those same people will not pay anything, their insurance costs will now be paid with increased taxes on everyone.

                    ?


                    • #55
                      Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                      Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                      Those were some great examples of tyranny.

                      But why stop there?

                      Want to kill somebody? Can't do that.

                      Want to rape somebody? Can't do that.

                      Want to steal? Can't do that.

                      Want to dispose of your used motor oil in a river? Can't do that.

                      Want to sell crack? Can't do that.

                      Want to drive drunk and impair your ability to drive and possibly kill other motorists? Can't do that.


                      Man, this society is so oppressive.
                      Go take a flight and see how oppressed you'll feel. Are you getting on a plane or being treated like a criminal and having your rights violated? If you ever get targeted for warrantless wire taps then you might feel oppressed. If you get indefinitely detained, you might feel oppressed. I could go on....

                      ?


                      • #56
                        Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                        Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                        Ok...but there's people who don't have health insurance but need emergency medical care.

                        And the hospitals have to provide them service anyways and guess who foots the bill? It gets passed down to the rest of us.

                        So how are those people who are negligently not insuring themselves but using hospital services not infringing upon the rest of us who do pay insurance and taxes?


                        It's like the mandatory seat belt or helmet laws. The state doesn't actually give a shit if some idiot becomes a vegetable in a wreck because they're too stubborn to do something smart like wear a seat belt or a helmet. The state doesn't want to foot the bill for serious trauma and long term care when it could have been avoided.
                        The government shouldn't be involved with healthcare in the first place, at all. If it wasn't it wouldn't have to worry about footing bills for unsafe drivers and drug users. The government has no business in healthcare and it has no business telling you what you can and cannot do with your own property, fruits of your labor, or your body, as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others and by rights I mean right to life, liberty, and property.

                        The entire concept of the Federal government providing healthcare or "insurance" is completely unconstitutional to begin with, and therefore is technically tyrannical in the first place, since it has no such authority and no such authority was ever granted. Just because the government rules its actions "ok" in a court, doesn't mean it actually is. The government, under our Constitution, cannot give itself power - that would completely defeat the purpose of a Constitution with enumerated powers, as explained eloquently by James Madison in the Federalist Papers.

                        So, the government oversteps its bounds, then it is forced to breech the Constitution in order to limit its costs of providing healthcare by limiting other actions you might take (like not wearing a seat belt or smoking crack).

                        You can ignore the rest of what I posted or make excuses all you want, but the Federal government is tyrannical. If the Feds overstep the Constitution, infringe on your rights to life, liberty, and property, and dictate what you can and cannot do with your own body, property, life, and income, it is a tyrannical government, period.

                        And here's a good example of tyranny for you

                        A no-knock raid on the WRONG house, a regular occurrence of the Drug War:

                        Here's How the Obama Administration Defended DEA Agents Who Put a Gun to a Little Girl's Head - Hit & Run : Reason.com

                        The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that the DEAs use of force against the 11-year-old and 14-year-old daughters of Thomas and Rosalie Avina--which included putting a gun to the youngest girl's head--was excessive, unreasonable, and constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress.

                        Attorneys for the Obama administration defended the raid, and Reason has obtained the brief the DOJ filed to the Ninth Circuit. In it, the Obama administration argues that the DEA agents conduct was plainly reasonable under the circumstances.

                        After subduing their parents, agents broke into the two girls bedrooms during a wrong-door raid in January, 2007. The oldest of the two girls dropped to the floor and was handcuffed by agents before being dragged into the living room and laid next to her mom and dad. The 11-year-old, however, was sleeping when agents came into her room. As they began to shout at her to get on the fucking ground, the girl woke up and froze in fear. Agents then dragged her from her bed to the floor. One agent handcuffed her while another aimed a gun at her head.
                        Of course I'm sure you'll try to defend it as "necessary" in the war against them thar evil drugs, but I guarantee you that if one of these raids occurred at your house at 4am and you had no drugs, the SWAT teams busts in commands you to get on the floor, shoots your dog, and then shoots a flash grenade at your daughter, causing her third degree burns (again this has happened in other wrong-house-no knock raids), I bet you'd feel pretty damn "oppressed" then, especially if you took the Feds to court and they said "oh well you have no case, get over it".

                        That is the very definition of tyranny. Don't believe me? Fine. Read Jefferson, Madison, the Federalist Papers. Hell read the Constitution.
                        Last edited by ericams2786; 01-05-2013, 08:54 AM.

                        ?


                        • #57
                          Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                          Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                          I think it does make a difference, and again that's not just my opinion. Jefferson, Henry, Washington, Madison, and many others felt the exact same way. They all said that the 2nd Amendment was the last defense against a tyrannical government. It DOES matter if you have a BETTER CHANCE of defending yourself than not. If someone breaks into your house, would you rather have a means to protect yourself or no means of protecting yourself? It's common sense: you'd want a CHANCE and way to defend yourself in that scenario. Versus the government, no you don't stand much of a chance - by yourself that is. Even a large group or a militia doesn't stand much of a chance - but they do stand a chance. If the slaves in the American South or the Jews of Nazi Germany had actually been well armed, would they have been able to resist a tyrannical government - well there's a good chance they wouldn't have been able to - they would have been outnumbered. BUT, they certainly would have had a chance to do so, even if it was slim. As history actually went - they had absolutely ZERO percent chance. It certainly was not a coincidence that the Nazis got laws passed that specifically barred Jews from owning firearms - and why slaves in America were barred from owning firearms. If those firearms could have caused no harm, why were they not allowed to own them? The answer is self-evident.

                          Arms to not prevent tyranny per se, that is up to the citizenry. But without arms, the citizenry is just screwed, plain and simple. Maybe they are screwed WITH arms, I don't know. But I know one thing for damn sure: The Founders put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution for a reason (and they told us what reason), you have the right to defend yourself, you have a better chance of defending yourself with an actual means to do so, and I can guarantee you that had Americans not been armed during the Revolution (for instance), there would be no United States. Sort of hard to fight a war against a tyrannical British King when you have no arms. And guess what...just so happens it worked. Were the arms the only reason - well of course not. But it was a big factor, at least in allowing the colonists to revolt in the first place. Actual victory had many factors - but the beginning of the revolt would have been impossible with an unarmed populace, plain and simple.
                          Yes, I understand the reason that Founders put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that, as a practical matter, it still serves as an effective safeguard against government tyranny in the 21st Century.

                          Consider:
                          The rules now allow the little-known National Counterterrorism Center to examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them. That is a departure from past practice, which barred the agency from storing information about ordinary Americans unless a person was a terror suspect or related to an investigation.

                          Now, NCTC can copy entire government databasesflight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained.

                          U.S. Terrorism Agency to Tap a Vast Database of Citizens - WSJ.com

                          What good is your gun in stopping this?

                          Personally, if I was in charge of the government (which, we can all be thankful, I am not) I wouldn't feel remotely threatened by gun ownership. I'd be a lot more concerned about computer hackers, rogue scientists experimenting with pathogens, etc.

                          Interestingly, I have noticed that, when people talk about taking guns away to prevent massacres, gun enthusiasts will inevitably (and correctly) note that there are plenty of other ways to inflict massive casualties. Yet these same people will also portray a gunless population as completely helpless... when, in fact, neither of the most damaging attacks launched against the U.S. government in recent times (the Oklahoma City Bombing and 9/11) involved guns at all.

                          But I question whether violence is ultimately the most likely road to success anyway. Mass action can paralyze the government and just as, if not more important in our plutocracy, paralyze the financial system as well. Even Gandhi-esque nonresistance is more likely to be effective in the future we will probably face than waving your gun at the aerial drone that is policing your neighborhood. Yes, that would require a degree of coordination... but so would armed resistance if it was to have the slightest possibility of success. But as long as we consider each other the enemy, that won't happen. And that, more than anything, is why our rights are slipping away.

                          ?


                          • #58
                            Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                            Originally posted by Whipple View Post
                            It seems an odd point when one group was specifically prohibited by law from owning firearms, another had no real way of obtaining them aside from trade with the people who were killing them, and the third was an extremely small part of the country that didn't seem to be particularly well armed.
                            Which is somewhat to miss the point ( though in fairness perhaps I wasn't overly clear ) I'm not asking why the groups themselves didn't defend themselves. I'm asking why the millions of freedom loving armed other Americans didn't use their firearms to prevent the oppression of these groups. You are no doubt aware of the famous quote by pastor Niemollor:

                            First they came for the Communists
                            And I did not speak out
                            Because I was not a Communist
                            Then they came for the Socialists
                            And I did not speak out
                            Because I was not a Socialist
                            Then they came for the trade unionists
                            And I did not speak out
                            Because I was not a trade unionist
                            Then they came for the Jews
                            And I did not speak out
                            Because I was not a Jew
                            Then they came for me
                            And there was no one left
                            To speak out for me

                            I'm sure you see what I'm driving at here.



                            A better discussion might revolve around just how easily Europe conquered the unarmed world.
                            Except we didn't conquer an unarmed world. We conquered an armed one, it wasn't quick nor easy but the world being armed didn't stop us doing it, any more than native Americans being armed stopped their land being taken.

                            I personally view the Second Amendment as being most effective as a matter of principle. It seems to be the last frontier, where millions of Americans will stand together and tell the government "No!". We cede rights every day but at least we can look at the right to bear arms and acknowledge that we have ceded those rights voluntarily and will take them back if we choose to. I believe it is the ceding of all rights to that government that has made Europe ripe for oppressive fascist, socialist, etc. governments.
                            Well, once you've ceded something it's generally pretty hard to get it back. Perhaps if more Americans were stop those rights being taken in the first place you wouldn't need guns as the final frontier ?

                            As regards oppressive fascism or socialism....well ask any black person who lived under the Jim Crow laws whether they cared about the political makeup of the country that allowed such a situation

                            ?


                            • #59
                              Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                              One question to all you pro gun controllers, "Which condition would make it easier to create a tyrannical government?"

                              a. A well armed citizenry?

                              b. An unarmed citizenry?

                              A simple answer will say it all, every last word of relevance.

                              ?


                              • #60
                                Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                                Originally posted by CharlesD View Post
                                One question to all you pro gun controllers, "Which condition would make it easier to create a tyrannical government?"

                                a. A well armed citizenry?

                                b. An unarmed citizenry?

                                A simple answer will say it all, every last word of relevance.
                                C. A citizenry unwilling to be tyrannized?

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X