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 shouldn’t 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

  • #76
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
    Perhaps, who knows. Did the American colonists have firepower parity with the British Empire? Nope.

    Still the simple logic it this: an armed populace has a better chance of defending against a tyrannical government than does a completely unarmed one. The chance may be incredibly small that an armed populace could stop tyranny, but it's ZERO percent chance unarmed. So which is better? An armed or an unarmed one at least attempting to prevent tyranny? Again the answer is self-evident and obvious. How can this possibly not be understood. Yes you need a citizenry willing and ABLE to use the tools at their disposal to stop tyranny and IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE IN HISTORY. Not every time, not all the time, but it is POSSIBLE and it has happened before, that an armed populace bucked a tyrannical government. And there are plenty of examples of failed attempts, but at least those folks had a chance - however slim. If you are unarmed you have absolutely NO CHANCE.

    I really don't get what is so hard about this concept. Again, you don't have to agree with the premise that an armed populace actually can stop tyranny. That's fine. But as acknowledged already on here, the entire point of the 2nd Amendment from the standpoint of the Founders and the folks who saw it necessary to include it in the Bill or Rights - was to serve as the last defense of the People against a tyrannical government. Jefferson said nothing about whether or not it would work because it is irrelevant. He did however speak about the need for the populace to be armed - so they have a chance to do such a thing. That's it. And since many people bring this argument up that armed people can't stop a tyranny, therefore why not just be unarmed, I figure the original intent is pretty damn relevant. If it was impossible, 100% impossible, to stop or fight against tyranny being armed, I'm sure the intelligent men who founded this country probably wouldn't have put the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights in the first place.
    Well, I'm sorry, they were just men. Smart, even brilliant men, maybe, but with, I'm sure you'll admit, limited experience at their job. Haha.

    More to the point, what could they possibly understand of the world we live in? Are their prescriptions of 200 years ago still valid today? I'm not saying that they aren't, but taking it as an article of faith that they are seems strange to me.

    And finally, it is not obvious to me that universal ownership of guns really is a deterrent to tyranny. Maybe it has weird and sneaky side affects. Maybe it does the exact opposite.
    Last edited by AdrienXII; 01-05-2013, 02:43 PM.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #77
      Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
      If you do, you will clean it up.
      Look, I can't go right now, I have to clean this up. Maybe tomorrow.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #78
        Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

        Originally posted by CharlesD View Post
        Live with it, the constitution guarantees our right to keep and bear arms without infringement.
        Actually, firearms don't make me uncomfortable. Really. Have all the guns you want, I don' t mind in the slightest.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #79
          Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

          Originally posted by AdrienXII View Post
          Well, I'm sorry, they were just men. Smart, even brilliant men, maybe, but with, I'm sure you'll admit, limited experience at their job. Haha.

          More to the point, what could they possibly understand of the world we live in? Are their prescriptions of 200 years ago still valid today? I'm not saying that they aren't, but taking it as an article of faith that they are seems strange to me.

          And finally, it is not obvious to me that universal ownership of guns really is a deterrent to tyranny. Maybe it has weird and sneaky side affects. Maybe it does the exact opposite.
          And even if your conclusion is true and valid, it has no bearing on the right to bear arms, period. I have the right to be armed just like I do free speech or to worship whatever god I chose. Like I said, that was the original intent whether I like it, you like it, it works or doesn't work. That's it, nothing else to it.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #80
            Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

            Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
            And even if your conclusion is true and valid, it has no bearing on the right to bear arms, period. I have the right to be armed just like I do free speech or to worship whatever god I chose. Like I said, that was the original intent whether I like it, you like it, it works or doesn't work. That's it, nothing else to it.
            Fine. Nothing to do with the OP however.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #81
              Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

              Originally posted by CharlesD View Post
              I think there are many people willing to die for their ideas as our history has proved over and over. Slow death? Maybe!
              Well, yes, that was my point. The people don't actually need the firepower. They have the numbers, and presumably the motivation. If the government starts to raise a clone army though, I agree that you should be worried.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #82
                Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                Originally posted by CharlesD View Post
                Are you suggesting that the Indian independence did not have firearm assistance?
                Are you suggesting that Gandhi had firearms?

                Silly question. Already answered.
                Silly is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose; but it was not answered. Would you submit to tyranny if you did not have a firearm?

                Why not ask the USSC?
                They generally don't take my questions.

                Remember what they said about Porn? They can't describe it but will know it when it occurs.
                That's actually a pretty terrible answer.

                But I did answer it this way, "if martial law is ordered with the obvious intent of creating a dictatorship."
                OK. Thank you.

                Of course we all know most of those questions about firearms and tyranny are nothing but sad attempts at mocking those of us who recognize the value of an armed citizenry in preventing such a takeover.
                I do find this an entertaining discussion, but my questions about the value of firearms in protecting our freedoms are sincere.

                But lets recognize that tyranny can happen, whether it does in reality come about.
                Tyranny can indeed happen. But if it comes to this country (more than it already has) it will not necessarily be in a recognizable form, nor vulnerable to your bullets.

                Also recognize that we will never know for sure if there was a time in our history of 235 years the thought of taking over and committing tyranny has never occurred but dropped because of an armed citizenry.
                True. But the fact that you have no evidence does not make your argument seem particularly powerful. (Also, to be technical, I think that firearms probably did serve their intended purpose for a while... just not recently.)

                Maybe you should start a thread to define what a "tyrannical government" is?
                Maybe.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #83
                  Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                  Originally posted by AdrienXII View Post
                  Fine. Nothing to do with the OP however.
                  Yes it does. The OP asks if an armed populace can prevent tyranny, presumably in relation to the gun control debate in America. We have the 2nd Amendment. Americans have the right to bear arms. The original intent of that Amendment was as a last resort to protect the populace from a tyrannical government, as clearly stated from the men who wrote it and put it in the Constitution. Furthermore, common sense tells you that an armed populace has a better chance of defending against a hypothetical tyranny than does an unarmed populace and though it cannot be directly proven, the US government may very well have been far more tyrannical by now than it actually is, had the 2nd Amendment never existed. Of course the opposite is true as well, but no one actually does or can know. Finally, even if you say that an armed populace cannot under any circumstances (which history shows is wrong) defend against a tyranny with an armed populace, it still stands to reason that if you are a sovereign individual with the right to life, liberty, and property, you have the right to defend those things, primarily (even if you take against the government out of the equation) against other individuals who would seek to do you harm. As a microcosm of this debate, would you rather be armed or unarmed in your house when a burglar breaks into your house with a gun? The answer is as obvious as the fact that you have the right to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your property. And even if that was the ONLY reason for the 2nd Amendment, that would be fine, but it isn't the reason, nor was that the intent. Given we have the right to bear arms and the intent originally was to give people a last resort to stop tyranny, it stands to reason as well that it doesn't matter whether or not it is very practical or it would work very often, the point is you have the right, that's what it is there for in the first place, and you at least have a chance when you are armed and do not when you are not armed.

                  Pretty simple.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #84
                    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                    Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                    Yes it does. The OP asks if an armed populace can prevent tyranny, presumably in relation to the gun control debate in America. We have the 2nd Amendment. Americans have the right to bear arms. The original intent of that Amendment was as a last resort to protect the populace from a tyrannical government, as clearly stated from the men who wrote it and put it in the Constitution. Furthermore, common sense tells you that an armed populace has a better chance of defending against a hypothetical tyranny than does an unarmed populace and though it cannot be directly proven, the US government may very well have been far more tyrannical by now than it actually is, had the 2nd Amendment never existed. Of course the opposite is true as well, but no one actually does or can know. Finally, even if you say that an armed populace cannot under any circumstances (which history shows is wrong) defend against a tyranny with an armed populace, it still stands to reason that if you are a sovereign individual with the right to life, liberty, and property, you have the right to defend those things, primarily (even if you take against the government out of the equation) against other individuals who would seek to do you harm. As a microcosm of this debate, would you rather be armed or unarmed in your house when a burglar breaks into your house with a gun? The answer is as obvious as the fact that you have the right to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your property. And even if that was the ONLY reason for the 2nd Amendment, that would be fine, but it isn't the reason, nor was that the intent. Given we have the right to bear arms and the intent originally was to give people a last resort to stop tyranny, it stands to reason as well that it doesn't matter whether or not it is very practical or it would work very often, the point is you have the right, that's what it is there for in the first place, and you at least have a chance when you are armed and do not when you are not armed.

                    Pretty simple.
                    Absolutely, positively and completely true! All of the mocking done in this forum by gun control nuts was nothing more than baiting those who believe in the 2nd amendment hoping we may misspeak by accident. Baiting, pure and simple.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #85
                      Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                      Originally posted by CharlesD View Post
                      Absolutely, positively and completely true! All of the mocking done in this forum by gun control nuts was nothing more than baiting those who believe in the 2nd amendment hoping we may misspeak by accident. Baiting, pure and simple.
                      This is a debating forum. If you're going to get all offended every time someone disagrees with you, why bother?

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #86
                        Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                        Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                        Yes it does. The OP asks if an armed populace can prevent tyranny, presumably in relation to the gun control debate in America. We have the 2nd Amendment. Americans have the right to bear arms. The original intent of that Amendment was as a last resort to protect the populace from a tyrannical government, as clearly stated from the men who wrote it and put it in the Constitution. Furthermore, common sense tells you that an armed populace has a better chance of defending against a hypothetical tyranny than does an unarmed populace and though it cannot be directly proven, the US government may very well have been far more tyrannical by now than it actually is, had the 2nd Amendment never existed. Of course the opposite is true as well, but no one actually does or can know. Finally, even if you say that an armed populace cannot under any circumstances (which history shows is wrong) defend against a tyranny with an armed populace, it still stands to reason that if you are a sovereign individual with the right to life, liberty, and property, you have the right to defend those things, primarily (even if you take against the government out of the equation) against other individuals who would seek to do you harm. As a microcosm of this debate, would you rather be armed or unarmed in your house when a burglar breaks into your house with a gun? The answer is as obvious as the fact that you have the right to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your property. And even if that was the ONLY reason for the 2nd Amendment, that would be fine, but it isn't the reason, nor was that the intent. Given we have the right to bear arms and the intent originally was to give people a last resort to stop tyranny, it stands to reason as well that it doesn't matter whether or not it is very practical or it would work very often, the point is you have the right, that's what it is there for in the first place, and you at least have a chance when you are armed and do not when you are not armed.

                        Pretty simple.
                        Whether you have the right or not is not the issue. The issue is whether this right serves any useful purpose in deterring tyranny. Just don't tell me the Founding Fathers believed so, I know that already.

                        Why would an unarmed society have no chance at opposing tyranny?

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #87
                          Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                          Originally posted by CharlesD View Post
                          Absolutely, positively and completely true! All of the mocking done in this forum by gun control nuts was nothing more than baiting those who believe in the 2nd amendment hoping we may misspeak by accident. Baiting, pure and simple.
                          Except you'd be wrong ( well in my case anyway, I can't speak for anybody else ) The 2nd amendment is perfectly clear: you have the right to keep and bear arms it's as simple as that. I live 3,000 odd miles in the UK I have no dog in this fight as it were. In fact I think most of the people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms have already sold out. You've already accepted that the right to keep and bear arms can and will be infringed. You're not arguing about whether it should be infringed but where it should be infringed.

                          I just simply feel that some of the stuff put forward by the pro gun side is so much rose tinted mythological wish fulfillment. I stand by what I said re the examples I gave in my OP private ownership of firearms did nothing to prevent the oppressive actions that took place and gun owners simply looked the other way as their fellow American citizens were treated shoddily and oppressively by both state and federal government.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #88
                            Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                            Originally posted by AdrienXII View Post
                            Whether you have the right or not is not the issue. The issue is whether this right serves any useful purpose in deterring tyranny. Just don't tell me the Founding Fathers believed so, I know that already.

                            Why would an unarmed society have no chance at opposing tyranny?
                            Because an unarmed society would have no means. If the government is a monopoly on force and power - which it is, literally the State is nothing but a monopoly on force - the government, should it turn tyrannical - will have firearms. They will bring the gun to the gun fight. If the populace is unarmed, well they aren't. That is the lessen of history and it is certainly the lessen of the 20th Century. Why do governments often ban certain groups of people or minorities within their countries from owning or possessing firearms? Why would that matter? Why did Hitler for instance worry so much about Jews owning firearms? Why didn't slave owners in America allow slaves to own firearms? Why do governments often forbid citizens from owning firearms, just in general, often times implementing gun bans right after a new government is formed, which ultimately becomes a genocidal tyranny. An example of that would be the many African tyrannical dictatorships that popped up in the 20th Century. Do you really think the Jews or the slaves in America or minorities in various African or East Asian countries would have been able to defend themselves from genocide while being unarmed. Oh wait, they didn't and millions died.

                            Come on man, this is just common sense.

                            Watch this documentary and get an idea of what I'm talking about. Great run down of the 20th Century with regard to genocide and gun control.

                            Innocents Betrayed - The True Story of Gun Control WorldWide - (Graphic Images) by JPFO.ORG - YouTube

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #89
                              Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                              Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                              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



                              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.
                              Funny how you are talking to me as if you know what I think.

                              My only point is I don't believe the US Govt is tyrannical, nor will ever be.

                              And I think it is an over-hyped, exaggerated reason for citizens to stockpile guns and ammo.

                              I think when people defend their 2nd amendment rights by buying as much guns and ammo as they can, they are really just benefitting the arms and ammo manufacturers, who have a vested interest in putting that message out there. I think they are using a classic salesman technique to sell people something, that is: fear. Fear the Feds will take your guns away or prohibit their sales, so buy as much as you can now. And look at how many of you are doing just that.


                              Simply put, I just don't believe the 2nd amendment will be overturned.

                              And I just don't believe our fellow Americans in the federal government and military will turn on the rest of us.

                              And just to clarify, I am a gun owner. I keep a 9mm in my nightstand, I just bought my wife a compact handgun to carry and I have a collection of older rifles and shotguns I have accumulated over the years.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #90
                                Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                                Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                                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....

                                Seriously? I fly all the time. Yes the post 9/11 heightened security is inconvenient and probably even futile. But I'm glad it is there. I certainly don't see it as oppression.

                                And why would I be targeted for a wiretap? Little old me? lol....if the Feds want to listen to my rather mundane phone calls then so be it. I have nothing to hide. Not like they would anyways. I guess i am not paranoid.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X