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

  • #91
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
    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.
    Tryanny comes with varying degrees. It's like any other thing. Degrees exist in reality. I see a degree of tyranny already. I have seen personal freedom lost in my own lifetime. The loss of freedoms, however incremental is tyranny sir. Sometimes people live under a sort of tyranny willingly because they just don't notice it because there isn't a Stalin at the top, or someone that matches Stalin. Perceptions here are important. Conditioning also is the friend of incremental tyranny. The old slowly cooking the frog experiment. The frog does not notice he will end in being cooked because of the slow increase in the water temps. Then one day he is done and ready to consume. Those strong legs could have gotten him out early on, if he could have noticed.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #92
      Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

      Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
      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
      What human history has proven is that gov'ts, some of them have disarmed their people in order to protect the gov't from the people. I am afraid it is true that power corrupts and corruption is the enemy of the People. The lust for power is the weak link in all forms of gov't. Yet we must have gov't. The only thing that the people can do is to vote men in that will put up safeguards from power corrupting which can lead to tyranny rather easily according to human history. Our problem is this. Today those men are few and far between. Dr. Paul was one, but look at how he was attacked by the media, all of the media.

      If this gov't ever becomes stupid enough to try to confiscate america's weapons, from good citizens, America is over with. The blood will run ankle deep and the second revolution will be on. I believe that firmly. If someone doesn't believe this will happen, you don't live in the same america I live in. We have a talk radio show on here in my area, conservative radio and one of the guests this week was a policemen, a high ranking one. When asked what would the police do here in this state if they were ordered to confiscate guns from citizens, he said you could only find a handfull in the entire state that would obey that order! He said they would refuse to do it. I believe it, at least here in the south.

      If you want to turn this nation into a war zone, let obama or anyone try to confiscate our guns. No politician that voted for it would be safe and while the citizens would be outgunned, the sheer numbers would be hard to address. And you would have our military deserting to join in with the patriots as well as police joining in. These anti gun people have no idea what they are wishing for.

      The american people are not europeans. In fact they are different in an important way from much of the world. If you want to see an illustration of what makes us different, try to take our guns away from us. The gene pool of what it took to settle this land is still alive and deep. And these americans will not tolerate what the anti gun left wants to happen.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #93
        Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
        What human history has proven is that gov'ts, some of them have disarmed their people in order to protect the gov't from the people. I am afraid it is true that power corrupts and corruption is the enemy of the People. The lust for power is the weak link in all forms of gov't. Yet we must have gov't. The only thing that the people can do is to vote men in that will put up safeguards from power corrupting which can lead to tyranny rather easily according to human history. Our problem is this. Today those men are few and far between. Dr. Paul was one, but look at how he was attacked by the media, all of the media.

        If this gov't ever becomes stupid enough to try to confiscate america's weapons, from good citizens, America is over with. The blood will run ankle deep and the second revolution will be on. I believe that firmly. If someone doesn't believe this will happen, you don't live in the same america I live in. We have a talk radio show on here in my area, conservative radio and one of the guests this week was a policemen, a high ranking one. When asked what would the police do here in this state if they were ordered to confiscate guns from citizens, he said you could only find a handfull in the entire state that would obey that order! He said they would refuse to do it. I believe it, at least here in the south.

        If you want to turn this nation into a war zone, let obama or anyone try to confiscate our guns. No politician that voted for it would be safe and while the citizens would be outgunned, the sheer numbers would be hard to address. And you would have our military deserting to join in with the patriots as well as police joining in. These anti gun people have no idea what they are wishing for.

        The american people are not europeans. In fact they are different in an important way from much of the world. If you want to see an illustration of what makes us different, try to take our guns away from us. The gene pool of what it took to settle this land is still alive and deep. And these americans will not tolerate what the anti gun left wants to happen.
        Your post is very true and apt to the situation. Though most of our settlers came from Europe, the ones who came were the adventurous ones. Was it a gene pool which adapted to a wilderness requiring bravery and spirit? Or was it people who came, saw what was needed and the ones who were up to it survived. I believe that our population by and large are more adventurous and more willing to step up to our needs rather than sit back and let the government do so much for them as is common in Europe. I believe firmly that our military services will stand up against tyranny, especially the citizen soldiers of the guard and reserves and the unorganized militia, a large part of which are the 8 million or so armed sportsmen who are fiercely individual in the need for liberty. The gun control nuts try to mock those of us who refuse to bow down to tyranny, and likely they will sit on their butts either out of not understanding or of fear to do what is right.

        Yes, some countries have disarmed their populace because they feared an armed citizenry. I don't see that happening in the US, not ever. We have too many sovereign states which will never ratify an elimination of the 2nd amendment to the constitution.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #94
          Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
          What human history has proven is that gov'ts, some of them have disarmed their people in order to protect the gov't from the people. I am afraid it is true that power corrupts and corruption is the enemy of the People. The lust for power is the weak link in all forms of gov't. Yet we must have gov't. The only thing that the people can do is to vote men in that will put up safeguards from power corrupting which can lead to tyranny rather easily according to human history. Our problem is this. Today those men are few and far between. Dr. Paul was one, but look at how he was attacked by the media, all of the media.

          If this gov't ever becomes stupid enough to try to confiscate america's weapons, from good citizens, America is over with. The blood will run ankle deep and the second revolution will be on. I believe that firmly. If someone doesn't believe this will happen, you don't live in the same america I live in. We have a talk radio show on here in my area, conservative radio and one of the guests this week was a policemen, a high ranking one. When asked what would the police do here in this state if they were ordered to confiscate guns from citizens, he said you could only find a handfull in the entire state that would obey that order! He said they would refuse to do it. I believe it, at least here in the south.

          If you want to turn this nation into a war zone, let obama or anyone try to confiscate our guns. No politician that voted for it would be safe and while the citizens would be outgunned, the sheer numbers would be hard to address. And you would have our military deserting to join in with the patriots as well as police joining in. These anti gun people have no idea what they are wishing for.

          The american people are not europeans. In fact they are different in an important way from much of the world. If you want to see an illustration of what makes us different, try to take our guns away from us. The gene pool of what it took to settle this land is still alive and deep. And these americans will not tolerate what the anti gun left wants to happen.
          Yes, they are very touchy about their guns. As I keep saying, the only right that gun owners have protected is the right to own guns (everything else, thus far, has been up for grabs). But so what? The government doesn't need to confiscate guns to become tyrannical. I'd bring up Saddam Hussein's Iraq as an example (most Iraqi households had at least one gun) but he's sort of your "old school" despot and not, in my view, a valid analogy for the kind of tyranny we are facing.

          One more thought: The standing assumption on this thread is that guns are here to save us from the next Hitler, but who is to say that the "revolution" won't be led by the next Hitler?

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #95
            Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

            Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
            Yes, they are very touchy about their guns. As I keep saying, the only right that gun owners have protected is the right to own guns (everything else, thus far, has been up for grabs). But so what? The government doesn't need to confiscate guns to become tyrannical. I'd bring up Saddam Hussein's Iraq as an example (most Iraqi households had at least one gun) but he's sort of your "old school" despot and not, in my view, a valid analogy for the kind of tyranny we are facing.

            One more thought: The standing assumption on this thread is that guns are here to save us from the next Hitler, but who is to say that the "revolution" won't be led by the next Hitler?
            That's a very real concern. The problem is that we've just fought a second revolution, and government mistrust may actually exceed that following the first revolution. If we need to remove another government 5 years later, I doubt we'll have much trouble doing it.

            It took 200 years to cultivate this level of trust.

            And, they'd work quote well regarding a canceled or ignored election. If Bush had stayed in office after Jan 20 2009, believe me, lots of Americans would have shown up with guns. Oh, and most of those who would show up to remove him likely voted for him in the first place.
            Last edited by Lurker; 01-06-2013, 01:11 PM.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #96
              Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

              Originally posted by Lurker View Post
              That's a very real concern. The problem is that we've just fought a second revolution, and government mistrust may actually exceed that following the first revolution. If we need to remove another government 5 years later, I doubt we'll have much trouble doing it.

              It took 200 years to cultivate this level of trust.

              And, they'd work quote well regarding a canceled or ignored election. If Bush had stayed in office after Jan 20 2009, believe me, lots of Americans would have shown up with guns. Oh, and most of those who would show up to remove him likely voted for him in the first place.
              I also believe that most of us, gun owners or not, have worked to protect the first amendment as well, even though it has gone through many changes of meaning. It started off as the right to assemble, of the press, of speech as a protection from a tyrannical government oppressing those rights. Now it is thought to mean we can say, make a movie of anything we want so long as it can't be a proved to step on other people's toes, to include pornography and nastiness (I don't believe that was intended by the FF). We have also progressed from a strictly freedom OF religion almost to the point of freedom FROM religion. We have not succeeded in protecting the 1st amendment and its meaning.

              The 2nd amendment fared a little better. We still have a Codified Militia and we generally have the right to keep and bear firearms though we have allowed some infringement of that right under the guise of "taking care of the general welfare."

              Enough for the moment, my wife wants to go eat lobster for her birthday. We have a dozen or so tails in the freezer but she wants to go out. Go figure!

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #97
                Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
                Yes, they are very touchy about their guns. As I keep saying, the only right that gun owners have protected is the right to own guns (everything else, thus far, has been up for grabs). But so what? The government doesn't need to confiscate guns to become tyrannical. I'd bring up Saddam Hussein's Iraq as an example (most Iraqi households had at least one gun) but he's sort of your "old school" despot and not, in my view, a valid analogy for the kind of tyranny we are facing.

                One more thought: The standing assumption on this thread is that guns are here to save us from the next Hitler, but who is to say that the "revolution" won't be led by the next Hitler?
                Well, the gun owners that I know are pschologically adverse to something akin to Hitler. In fact, I would trust the gun owners over the anti gun owners in this area. But it may be my own area of the nation, yet I think most of the West would be very similiar to the South in this respect. To get a good idea of the geographics, just look at the breakdown of red and blue states in the last presidential election. It runs red through the South before heading westward. Much of the nation is red. And red is pro gun ownership areas, I think.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #98
                  Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  Well, the gun owners that I know are pschologically adverse to something akin to Hitler. In fact, I would trust the gun owners over the anti gun owners in this area. But it may be my own area of the nation, yet I think most of the West would be very similiar to the South in this respect. To get a good idea of the geographics, just look at the breakdown of red and blue states in the last presidential election. It runs red through the South before heading westward. Much of the nation is red. And red is pro gun ownership areas, I think.
                  I've known quite a few blue gun owners as well. My dad is one. I've owned a total of one gun ever. He has a collection that rivals most dealers, with a focus on historical weapons.

                  As much as there is a correlation between gun ownership and redstaters, it doesn't rise to the level of causation. We have plenty of old school union guys who will never even consider voting for a Republican, yet go to church every Sunday, and would rather drink bleach than file for food stamps. Oh, and they have a lot of guns. Country with 300 million people has 300 million stories, many of which lead to a vote for one party or the other.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #99
                    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                    Afghanistan and Somalia are full of weapons ... even the Balkan countries still are. The governments there are trying to reduce the insane amounts of weapons in private possession and the rightly do so because its a major threat of instability.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                      Originally posted by CharlesD View Post
                      Your post is very true and apt to the situation. Though most of our settlers came from Europe, the ones who came were the adventurous ones. Was it a gene pool which adapted to a wilderness requiring bravery and spirit? Or was it people who came, saw what was needed and the ones who were up to it survived.
                      Mmmm.....some more myth making going on here ? I must admit I thought the majority of immigrants settled around the urban conurbations or took up farming in what was already pacified country. Peak immigration was what 1907 or thereabouts ? Not exactly much rugged pioneer spirit needed then.

                      I believe firmly that our military services will stand up against tyranny, especially the citizen soldiers of the guard and reserves and the unorganized militia, a large part of which are the 8 million or so armed sportsmen who are fiercely individual in the need for liberty. The gun control nuts try to mock those of us who refuse to bow down to tyranny, and likely they will sit on their butts either out of not understanding or of fear to do what is right.
                      Nobody is mocking you for refusing to bow down to tyranny.....because you aren't being faced with tyranny so you've nothing to bow down to. If you firmly believe that the military services will stand up to tyranny then why do you need to be armed to stand up to tyranny ? Please note I'm not disputing your right just the rationale behind it.
                      Last edited by Agentorange; 01-06-2013, 03:09 PM. Reason: typo

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                        Originally posted by Agentorange View Post
                        Mmmm.....some more myth making going on here ? I must admit I thought the majority of immigrants settled around the urban conurbations or took up farming in what was already pacified country. Peak immigration was what 1907 or thereabouts ? Not exactly much rugged pioneer spirit needed then.



                        Nobody is mocking you for refusing to bow down to tyranny.....because you aren't being faced with tyranny so you've nothing to bow down to. If you firmly believe that the military services will stand up to tyranny then why do you need to be armed to stand up to tyranny ? Please note I'm not disputing your right just the rationale behind it.
                        The rationale is that it increases the number of people that need to be convinced before it'll happen. It's possible to convince a small group of people to do something stupid. But a very very large group? For a lot of soldiers it may come down to the order to shoot on Americans. They may obey up to the point that they allow an election cancellation, but when the rebellion shows up, that's when they turn.

                        The rebellion needs to exist. It needs to march to Washington. That is an additional insurance policy. Asking soldiers who had previously gone along with the change to shoot countrymen is the point in which tyranny will fall.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                          Originally posted by Lurker View Post
                          That's a very real concern. The problem is that we've just fought a second revolution, and government mistrust may actually exceed that following the first revolution. If we need to remove another government 5 years later, I doubt we'll have much trouble doing it.
                          Not sure what to say about that. As much as we're speculating about a first revolution, we are really speculating about a second.

                          It took 200 years to cultivate this level of trust.

                          And, they'd work quote well regarding a canceled or ignored election. If Bush had stayed in office after Jan 20 2009, believe me, lots of Americans would have shown up with guns. Oh, and most of those who would show up to remove him likely voted for him in the first place.
                          I do not share your certainty that gun owners would have risen up against Bush. Of course, we would have to understand the context — i.e. what led up to that power grab? what was the rationale? Etc. — before we could concluded that gun owners would have overthrown Bush so a radical, Marxist Muslim from Kenya could become president and confiscate their guns.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                            Well, the gun owners that I know are pschologically adverse to something akin to Hitler. In fact, I would trust the gun owners over the anti gun owners in this area. But it may be my own area of the nation, yet I think most of the West would be very similiar to the South in this respect. To get a good idea of the geographics, just look at the breakdown of red and blue states in the last presidential election. It runs red through the South before heading westward. Much of the nation is red. And red is pro gun ownership areas, I think.
                            I don't see where owning a firearm makes anyone more adverse to totalitarianism than someone who doesn't.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                              Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
                              Not sure what to say about that. As much as we're speculating about a first revolution, we are really speculating about a second.
                              You brought up a rebellion installing Adolph Hitler 2.0. That would be the outcome.
                              I do not share your certainty that gun owners would have risen up against Bush. Of course, we would have to understand the context — i.e. what led up to that power grab? what was the rationale? Etc. — before we could concluded that gun owners would have overthrown Bush so a radical, Marxist Muslim from Kenya could become president and confiscate their guns.
                              Marxist idiot or not, he's still our president. The Constitution says so.

                              Why am I certain such a thing would occur? Because I have faith in my fellow Americans. And faith in my fellow rednecks (who are about to start flaming me probably). We are inherently distrustful of power. Many of us have major problems with authority.

                              But, the one thing we all have in common - we love our Republic. We've loved it since our dads first taught us about it. Whomever chooses to fuck with it, Republican, Democrat, Whig, or Green are going to need to deal with us.

                              Would you march with us?
                              Last edited by Lurker; 01-06-2013, 04:50 PM.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                                Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
                                I don't see where owning a firearm makes anyone more adverse to totalitarianism than someone who doesn't.
                                You're right, it doesn't. But those who are adverse to tyranny often buy guns with that as their primary motivation.

                                So, while guns do not lead to aversion of tyranny, aversion to tyranny does lead to gun purchases. Guns don't do much on their own. The oil would mess up your papers if it were used as a paperweight for example.
                                Last edited by Lurker; 01-06-2013, 04:55 PM.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X